in Editorial , 407 references
The data continues to come in and is clear.
Not only are the hospitalization requirements from nursing home and other "skilled care" institutions for elderly people ridiculously over-represented (in every state where I have found detailed information by forty to fifty times or more their percentage of the population at-large) but they are also ridiculously over-represented when it comes to deaths, usually by the same percentages.
Without these deaths and hospitalizations and deaths, in fact this disease would be of no special concern at all. Oh certainly, it would kill some people -- but by no means would it rate as a serious public health threat worthy of closing the entire economy and causing an economic depression.
It wasn't originally either, by the way -- this hasn't changed. "Mitigations" will not change if you will get the virus; that has been admitted since this began. They only change when you get the virus. If it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you.
So the plan should have been, and we the people should accept nothing other, than the following on an immediate basis -- under pain of whatever we have to do to enforce it.
1. All skilled nursing home and other similar facilities are locked in. This includes staff; if there is insufficient housing then rent some RVs or other trailers, stick them in the parking lot, and there you go. Nobody comes in or leaves unless they have a positive antibody test and a negative PCR test, demonstrating they cannot transmit the virus. Any staff member who refuses is summarily fired and, if they are a licensed individual, their license is revoked. Deliveries are made to the curb of the facility with zero contact between such persons and the staff. Period.
2. Any person who can demonstrate immunity may enter upon and leave said facility as they wish; this includes visitors, workmen and others. No other person, except in the case of documented emergency (e.g. plumbing malfunction, emergency transport of a resident to a hospital, etc) may do so and any person who must for emergency reasons must be screened on-site for the virus before being allowed in the building. If this is impractical (e.g. EMS workers) then the entire path on which they travel and any location where they or any of their equipment goes must be immediately sanitized upon their departure by a person who is antibody-positive.
3. A person (e.g. resident) who leaves may not return until and unless there is a 14-day quarantine facility on site with completely separate airhandling and no physical interconnection or they test positive for antibodies, documenting that they do not have a latent infection that can become transmissible.
Everyone else goes back to work and all constraints otherwise are dropped.
If we had done this at the outset we would have saved roughly half the lives lost thus far and more than half the hospitalizations. There would have been zero justification for locking down anything. Likewise, there is no justification for doing so now.
People in this circumstance account for approximately 1/2% of the population of the nation. We are being collectively punished to "protect" these people and not only are we failing to do so, as they're dying at ridiculously outsized rates, in addition collective punishment when one has committed no offense is both blatantly unconstitutional and a proper casus belli.
Again, there is no particular problem with hospital capacity absent these individuals and, in addition the mitigation measures not only cannot prevent you from getting the virus they were never claimed to be able to either; the entire justification for them was to avoid overloading the hospitals.
Well, that's how you accomplish that -- and any politician who is empowered to drop the constraints and doesn't must be immediately ejected from their office and our economy restarted now.