Dr. R. Dawn Comstock wants to be clear: She’s a sports fan. As a doctor who works with athletes, she understands the value they bring. But Comstock is watching what’s happening with college footbal…
nypost.com
We've learned a lot since China admitted in late January that there was a virus on the loose, but no one has done a good job (including Johns Hopkins) of identifying the key factors about which we should be vigilant
and which might help return some normalcy to life. Part of the problem was the mantra of "follow the science" when we knew nothing about the virus and the Chinese refused to let scientists from around the world into the country to evaluate the early strains, etc. So, it was running wild there for over three months before they told us about it and we lost valuable time and ultimately, lives, while world economies were destroyed.
Factors like the percentage of people within various groups (age, gender, etc.) that have tested positive and the percentage of those who have died for example. We've been given totals of deaths by age groups and it's obviously the elderly are most at risk but we don't know enough to be able to make basic informed decisions as to whether or not to have a family gathering of low risk people.
We should be shown the studies that prove there is a statistically proven benefit to wearing masks, or avoiding gatherings of more than 6 people, or any of the other new norms while it's deemed OK to have riots or political gatherings. Last night, out to dinner with two other couples, one of the guys told me about a well regarded study that showed wearing masks was statistically insignificant. I asked him to send me the info.
My point is that people that are broadly at low risk, like those under 45, are losing their homes, unable to pay their rent or their car payments and kids are being denied an education because we're treating everyone as if they're over 75 and have underlying health problems while the number of
deaths from pneumonia still exceed those from Covid19 in the USofA.
