Attestupa

Attestupa is a prehistoric Nordic phrase supposedly originating from sites where the elderly threw themselves off cliffs (or were thrown off) when they were unable to support themselves or assist in a household.  I doubt we'll find anyone who thinks this is an acceptable practice and we'll consider this one bookend in the spectrum of how a society should treat those who are old, sick, or otherwise at risk.  

Our most recent example of the bookend at the other end of the spectrum is the current CV-19 lockdown, where we are figuratively throwing our young and healthy off an economic, social, and mental cliff in order to protect the elderly and at risk.   I believe much of the nation was and is willing to temporarily give up some freedom in order to prevent the spread of a dangerous pandemic.  I also believe we are willing to do so, even if our own personal risk is low, so those most at risk can remain as healthy as possible.  So for a moment let's abandon the notion the social distancing measures were wrong in the first place and instead focus on what it will take to resume some form of normalcy in our lives.  

We were told these extreme measures were necessary to flatten the curve to slow the spread of the virus.  The most important word in that sentence is "slow".  This was never about waiting until there was no threat at all or the virus was eradicated.  This was always about slowing the spread of the virus to give us time to learn more about how to treat it and to prevent overwhelming our medical response.  

In a perfect scenario a vaccine or highly successful treatment would quickly be found and everyone would have the confidence to resume life as normal.  What we know is a vaccine is at least a year away (and more likely 18 months).  After 4 months we also don't have a treatment protocol agreed upon by health experts to cure those infected.  And we have no timeline for mass testing of potentially infected as well as antibody testing to see those who may be immune.  So in short, we really aren't any closer to a medical solution today than we were 4 months ago.  

Here's some rough stats (probably not perfect but good enough to make my point)

• Globally 1.9 million people out of 5.5 billion are known to be infected.  In those terms, we are all on quarantine over a .000345 infection rate. 
• Globally 119k have died out of those 1.9 million infected.  In those terms, our lives are all on hold over a 6% global mortality rate.  You have a 94% chance of survival if you get it and that's assuming every demographic has the same mortality rate, which we know is not the case.
• In the US 581,000 out of 319 million are known to be infected.  That's a .0018 infection rate.
• In the US 23,604 of those infected have died.  That's a .04 mortality rate.  You have a 96% chance of survival.
• We have 17 states with less than 1000 confirmed cases.  We have another 15 states with less than 3000 confirmed cases.  That's 60% of the states in our country.
• NY and NJ have over half of the reported deaths for the entire country (NY alone is 42%).  And while I don't have the numbers, I'm guessing NYC and Newark account for more than 75% of those numbers.  

We have seen the curve begin to flatten but we are also regularly warned of the dire consequences of returning to life as normal too soon.  So what then is the acceptable criteria for beginning to relax the current measures in place?  There will be no vaccine this year.  We have no end in site for a cure.  There is no timetable for mass testing nor a plan to use that testing to systematically return life to the new normal.  So what then are we waiting for?  Newly infected cases could go to zero but the risk of a return of the virus will still be there.  Our elected leaders are telling us they need science and data to guide their decisions on when we will re-open.  Another way to say that is they currently do not the necessary scientific data to make a decision about the best course forward.  In other words, that same lack of scientific data is being used to keep is on indefinite lockdown.  Net/net, limited data is apparently fine for definitively hurting 99% of the healthy population but not okay for potentially putting at risk the other 1% of the at risk population.

So I ask again, what will it take to reopen?  In the absence of a vaccine, a cure, and testing, what will give our elected leaders the comfort to relax the rules?  And if the answer is nothing, then we either need to gradually return to normal now or all be prepared for continued lockdown for several more months.  What if the real answer on how to save the most lives is for herd immunity to take effect?  What if our lockdown is simply prolonging the issue while creating a number of other unintended consequences like unemployment, increases in spousal abuse, and mental health erosion?  What if 80% of the population already is immune?  What if we never find a vaccine or cure?  

I want to reiterate I'm not attempting to minimize the significance or severity of CV-19.  I'm simply arguing the risks are extremely low for the vast majority of the population, so let us make our own decisions about how much risk we are willing to take.  For those who are old and/or at risk, by all means stay at home.  Social distance to your heart's content.  Allow them to continue to work from home if they choose.  But for everyone else, let them roam free.  Life is risky.  We die every day from disease, accidents, overdoses, old age, heart attacks, etc.  Life is hard and it ends the same for 100% of everyone.  Linda Ellis wrote, "Your life is made of two dates and a dash".  I'm not advocating putting someone else's dash at risk, I'm simply asking to be allowed to live my own dash as I see fit.