Coronavirus and the Economy – 2GreenEnergy.com

Here’s a discussion on re-opening the economy that readers may find interesting:

Peter: I’m with this guy, Dr. Dan Erickson of Bakersfield, CA who just dropped multiple bombshells (in this video) that disagree with the official government narrative. There is not enough benefit from a stay-at-home policy to warrant destruction of the economy, and other harmful social effects. In this video, he just touches on the data, but in subsequent videos, he covers a lot of ground. I’m sold.

Geoff: I listened and my response is opposite yours. His observations are quite limited. He didn’t back up his assertions with statistical virological analysis or econometric tradeoff analysis. He didn’t factor in the Hokkaido experience of a re-emergence worse than the first after relaxed distancing. He didn’t factor in that there is a high correlation between premature cardiovascular mortality events (ischemic stroke and MI) in younger patients in the presence of Covid-19. He didn’t factor in the WHO observation that there appears to be no evidence of acquired immunity having survived Covid-19. He didn’t factor in the established fact that Covid-19 overwhelmed hospitals within the clusters. He didn’t explain how Covid-19 deaths, in three months, have already reached the typical ANNUAL mortality of the common flu. He didn’t address the fact that the 10-20% morbidity rate of Covid-19 is much higher than the common flu. His argument is still gut based not evidence based from his limited experience and analyses.

Peter: Thanks for your opinion. You’re right that we didn’t get to see his actual data. Only his verbal assessment of the data. It’s hard to express the work in this way, but my tendency is to allow healthy people to go out, and sick people to stay in. It’s just a matter of adequate testing.

Craig: I would also add a few things:

• In the area his office serves, Kern County, CA, barely 1% of the 900K residents have been tested. No one has any idea how many cases there actually are.

• His assertion that the mortality rate is the same as the flu is completely incorrect.

• I tend to be swayed by the viewpoints of virologists and immunologists rather than ER doctors in this extremely specific case, and as far as I’m aware, not a single one shares his belief.

• You can find one individual with a degree who will tell you almost anything. I believe there are still (a few) climate scientists who deny the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and there are biophysicists who believe that the second law of thermodynamics invalidates the theory of evolution. Both are extremely rare, but I believe they do exist.

• Fringe viewpoints like these normally derive from cognitive biases, i.e., from fallacious thinking, in which people are looking for evidence that confirms what they want to believe. It would be very interesting to know what belief systems these two young men share.

• He asserts that his position to make a judgement here is superior to that of (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Dr. Anthony Fauci because “Fauci doesn’t see patients; I see patients.” That is preposterous, putting it kindly. Next time I have to drive up north, remind me to stay far away from Bakersfield (which would have been good advice even before I had the misfortune to learn about Dr. Erickson).