[Hidden-tech] The Simple Logic of the Pandemic

[Rob Laporte]

Hi HTers,

I worry that, for a variety of reasons, ever more Americans can’t perform simple reasoning. But maybe what’s seems so clear to me is some kind of delusion. Sp I ask whether the following reasoning is sound.


  1.  Flattening the curve increases the time span until herd immunity but not the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity.
     *   The math on what's needed for herd immunity is quite simple as math goes, depending on transmissibility, and standing now at about 80%. Whatever this percentage is does not change the login here.
  2.  Social distancing, masks, hand-washing, and the like flatten the curve but won’t reduce the total area under the curve and above the horizontal axis of time. That is, sooner or later, the same quantity of people will ultimately contract Covid-19.
  3.  Even if 10% of the population has it now (and countries doing good testing show nothing close to that yet), pre-pandemic behavior would produce a flare up of occurrences nearly equal to past flare ups. Of course the higher the percentage of the population that becomes immune, the slower it spreads, but even at 25%, it would spread fast. (A simple math matter for anyone qualified).
  4.  If, as more research is showing but not yet concluding, people aren't immune after recovery, this cycle never ends--and vaccines would not produce immunity either.
     *   The math of x percent of recovered are immune for Y months is also relatively simple math that enables planning.
        *   Average duration of immunity after a recovery from a coronaviruses is 48 months, according to one summary all past studies.
  5.  Therefore, if a vaccine can't be made, return to the way things were before he pandemic is not remotely possible ever.
  6.  If a successful, permanently effective vaccine can be made, only after almost everyone has take it can things begin to return to the way they were before the pandemic.

Seems like solid reasoning to me. If it is, we'd best be planning for it.

This is more speculative, but stands to reason: Regarding treatment and outcomes, increasingly strong evidence shows that much of the damage is done by +2 and +3 charged iron free radicals released when the virus replaces iron in blood cells. Leave aside for the moment the problem of blood carrying less oxygen. Strong free radical scavengers would likely improve outcomes, perhaps substantially, because tissue damage, usually mostly to the lungs, is a big contributor to grave illness and death. Such has has been shown with vitamin C's positive effects, but there are stronger antioxidants available over the counter. This would mean that we don't need big pharma as much for treatment, and that inexpensive and widely available supplements would substantially reduce hospitalization rates. Since mainstream media gets a huge percent of its revenue from big pharma, such news may be slow to spread.


Take Care,


Rob Laporte

Chief Business Development Officer | Founder | Chairman

DISC, Inc. - Making Websites Make Money

413-584-6500

rob at 2disc.com<mailto:rob at 2disc.com> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/2disc/> | 2DISC.com<https://www.2disc.com>


NOTE: Emails can be blocked by spam filters throughout the web. If you don’t get a reply within an expected span of time, please call.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20200415/8c72a76c/attachment-0001.html>