Math of Lockdown?
Once upon a time blankets carrying a disease were used to clear land for settlement. Isolated villages were infected and the maximum number of deaths occurred. Today a virus has been introduced into our modern well populated world, but there are few isolated villages where these events may be easily repeated. Our population centres are too large and our systems too robust. As people recover they gain natural immunity that slows the spread of the virus. In a small village the disease can spread fast enough that it infects all before the natural immunity grows, in a large city it cannot.
Unfortunately many of us are governed poorly. Cities have been placed in lock-down, breaking our community apart. Lock down recreates the dynamics of the small village, by isolating us into small groups. In lock down those who gain natural immunity are forever confined away from the vulnerable.
This lock down mechanism is why Victoria kills more people with Covid-19 than neighbouring New South Wales. The extended brutal lock downs Victorians use are responsible for higher infection rates.
Lock downs are counter productive at every stage after the very initial period. It is possible to estimate when the effectiveness of lock down policy finishes and it become hazardous, by asking how much greater natural immunity is compared to the vaccines - a recent Israelli study suggests this ratio is 13. When the weekly uptake of vaccines for vulnerable age groups is less than 13x greater than the the weekly total number of infections lock down should end.
By this ratio Victoria should have ended lock downs in early September.
Auckland, NZ is currently in lock down and should have ended it by last week.
Does this logic make sense?
posted by unaha-closp @ 12:38 PM
0 Comments
