James_Madison_Lives
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,797
1958: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html
And in the 1968 "Hong Kong Flu" pandemic, about 100,000 Americans died, according to the CDC. Again no lockdown, world did not end.
US population was 2/3 what it is now, 200 million. Bigger hit per capita.
Scientist says Fauci 200,000 to a million deaths projected was not based on science. Now projected deaths this year down to 60,000, with further outbreaks guaranteed due to interference with building herd immunity.
So why are we doing this again?
And in the 1968 "Hong Kong Flu" pandemic, about 100,000 Americans died, according to the CDC. Again no lockdown, world did not end.
US population was 2/3 what it is now, 200 million. Bigger hit per capita.
Scientist says Fauci 200,000 to a million deaths projected was not based on science. Now projected deaths this year down to 60,000, with further outbreaks guaranteed due to interference with building herd immunity.
So why are we doing this again?
Dr. David L. Katz, New York Times, New York Times article "Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?"
"The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are “mild” and do not require specific medical treatment."
...
"Importantly, that robust immune response also prevents transmission. If a germ can’t secure its hold on your body, your body no longer serves as a vector to send it forward to the next potential host. This is true even if that next person is not yet immune. When enough of us represent such “dead ends” for viral transmission, spread through the population is blunted, and eventually terminated. This is called herd immunity."st to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are “mild” and do not require specific medical treatment."
...
"This focus on a much smaller portion of the population would allow most of society to return to life as usual and perhaps prevent vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Healthy children could return to school and healthy adults go back to their jobs. Theaters and restaurants could reopen, though we might be wise to avoid very large social gatherings like stadium sporting events and concerts."...
"So long as we were protecting the truly vulnerable, a sense of calm could be restored to society. Just as important, society as a whole could develop natural herd immunity to the virus. The vast majority of people would develop mild coronavirus infections, while medical resources could focus on those who fell critically ill. Once the wider population had been exposed and, if infected, had recovered and gained natural immunity, the risk to the most vulnerable would fall dramatically."
Last edited: