I'm struck by the reassuring and matter-of-fact tone throughout this article from 2009 about swine flu in Mexico and how different it is from COVID reporting. It's about Mexico reopening after a 2-week lockdown.
"A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said America's two swine flu deaths - a toddler and a pregnant woman who both died in Texas- each suffered from several other illnesses when they were infected with the virus."
"[WHO] said...it is possible that a third of the world's population, or about 2 billion people, could become infected if this outbreak turns into a two-year pandemic. Independent experts agreed that the estimate was possible but pointed out that many would not show any symptoms."
"On Friday, Hong Kong prepared to lift its weeklong quarantine on the Metropark Hotel, where a Mexican traveler with swine flu stayed last week. About 280 guests and employees are being held inside the building in a measure some have denounced as overreaction."
"At a Tijuana high school, nurses distributed sanitizing gel and school officials patrolled halls to stop students from kissing.
The precautions irked Liliana Tornero, 17."
'Janeth Torres, an industrial engineering student, wore a mask to her university in Ciudad Juarez, but she thought the epidemic was overblown.
"In these times of crisis, what we need is to work and to not be wasting time on this foolishness," she said.'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Many are arguing with me that the very small possibility of asymp/presymp transmission is still non-zero. So I want to point all of you to the CDC's reasoning for recently reducing quarantine to 10 days (sorry, caps are theirs): "ACCEPTING THERE IS A SMALL RESIDUAL RISK...
2/ "THAT A PERSON WHO IS LEAVING QUARANTINE EARLY CAN TRANSMIT TO SOMEONE ELSE IF THEY BECAME INFECTIOUS. THOSE RISKS ARE AS FOLLOWS — IN THE SITUATION WHERE QUARANTINE IS REDUCED TO TEN DAYS, WE CALCULATE THAT...
3/ "THE RESIDUAL RISK IS ABOUT 1% AND THAT THE UPPER LIMIT OF THAT RISK IS ABOUT 12%."
So the CDC formally accepts that small risks of transmission are acceptable because there are trade-offs to reducing the risk to zero.
1/ Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, @MartinKulldorff, and @SunetraGupta argue in this essay that there IS a middle ground between lockdowns and a "let it rip" approach."
They also offer specific ways to protect the vulnerable 👇
2/ "The aim of focused protection is to minimize overall mortality from both COVID-19 and other diseases by balancing the need to protect high-risk individuals from COVID-19 while reducing the harm that lockdowns have had on other aspects of medical care and public health."
3/ "Standard public health practice regularly seeks creative ways to protect vulnerable people from a host of diseases and conditions that threaten them, and COVID19 should not be an exception... These include,
e.g., frequent on-site testing...