Comment by jMyles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jMyles | Hacker News Reader

> “It hinges on how many deaths we are going to tolerate before we get to a level of herd immunity where we stop transmission,” Rutherford said. “I have to come down on the side of preventing mortality.”

I must say I find this perspective difficult to understand - how can this person believe he's on the side of preventing mortality?

It appears certain at this point that there is no remaining mathematical possibility for the population-wide mortality rate in the US to end up as low as Sweden, which of course did not close primary schools or engage in any lockdown at all.

Sweden is by no means a model response - they did many things wrong. But at a minimum, it's a baseline count, no? If the USA mortality rate is higher, without even accounting for second-order mortality from the lockdowns themselves, then how can the US policy possibly be defended as anti-mortality?

a simplification of his argument is the end goal for all the policies is currently herd immunity. the problem with the current policy is reaches herd immunity by spreading the virus through both the vulnerable and less vulnerable population.

however, they are proposing reaching herd immunity by trying to spread the virus only through the less vulnerable population. because there is different rates of death between the two populations this should lead to less death overall.

> as low as Sweden

As low as only a thousand times higher than Taiwan?

Yes, that's the point - Sweden is a baseline for what happens with no lockdowns or school closures (but also few other sound counter-measures).

The US had lockdowns and fared much worse.

Taiwan had no lockdowns or school closures (but also has done some things that Sweden hasn't done, like isolate older populations) and has, so far, done better.

You can't use Sweden as a counterfactual for the US (or any other country aside from their nearest neighbours) because their culture is so different. Most people in Sweden live by themselves, it's a reasonably socially-distant culture by default, etc. Saying that it is what happens if you don't lockdown or close schools isn't comparing apples with apples.

> then how can the US policy possibly be defended as anti-mortality?

There hasn't really been a coherent US policy, though, has there? The administration has been unable to get behind a reality-based response.

Namely, please see the NEJM editorial:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812?source=ne...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com