Lockdown is killing more patients than the coronavirus

Conservative Review ^ | April 30, 2020 | Daniel Horowitz

[grundle]

Oregon’s largest news publication stumbled across a startling finding in the state’s fatality statistics. The Oregonian found that “245 more Oregonians died during the five weeks between March 16 and April 19 than during those same five weeks in 2017, 2018 and 2019, on average.” But only 78 people died in total from the virus, so where are the other 167 coming from?

To anyone who is following the data, it’s quite evident these mystery deaths are coming from the lockdown itself – both from the ban on vital medical procedures and the inordinate panic that is keeping people away from emergency rooms.

If pursuing a national lockdown was the biggest mistake in our history, shutting down “elective” medical procedures was the biggest mistake of the lockdown. Call it destroying health care to “save” health care.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and on March 15, the American Hospital Association ominously warned the surgeon general what would happen if medical care were shut down under the guise of preparing for an overload of COVID-19 patients (which failed to materialize in almost every city). While cautioning for a more nuanced and balanced approach to allow health care providers to perform “vital services to others in the community who need care,” the AHA warned about the misconception of the term “elective” surgeries.

It is imperative to note that “elective” simply means a procedure is scheduled rather than a response to an emergency. For example, “elective” surgeries could include replacement of a faulty heart valve, removal of a serious cancerous tumor, or a pediatric hernia repair. Often, if these types of procedures are delayed or canceled, the person’s condition gets rapidly worse and can even be life threatening. This is particularly true with children who are all in an active phase of their life growth and development. The resulting decline in their health could make them more vulnerable to COVID-19.

A blanket directive to cancel elective and non-urgent procedures usurps the proper role of the physicians caring for patients and their families, collaborating closely with the hospital, to determine what is in the patient’s best interests.

Tragically, six weeks later with no end in sight in some states, we can only imagine the enormous number of cancer surgeries, heart surgeries, transplants, life-saving diagnostic tests and biopsies, and complex orthopedic surgeries that have been pushed off – and the corresponding life years that will be lost as a result.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 46 percent of the lost GDP for the first quarter of this year (exclusively from the lockdown in the final days of the quarter) was from the health care sector. That is simply astounding, given that one would think that during an epidemic, the one industry that would do well, at least financially, is the health care industry. But the surge in hospitalizations never materialized in most places; most other procedures were shut down by edict; and the remaining emergency care plummeted by 40 percent in most states because people were so terrified to go out, thanks to the over-exaggeration of the case fatality rate of COVID-19. Hospitals were left with the worst of all worlds, both financially and for the health of their patients.

It’s therefor no mystery as to why Oregon had twice as many excess deaths this past month as deaths from COVID-19. While the article’s author gropes in the dark to discover the culprit, he lets the cat out of the bag when he reports, “Nearly all the above-average deaths occurred at home, among Oregonians both receiving and not receiving hospice care.”

With Oregon’s hospital system at a 40 percent reduced capacity, it doesn’t mean that there has miraculously been a 40 percent reduction in any health problem – from cancer and stroke to heart attacks and hypertension – other than from car accidents. It means that, as Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford warned on my podcast last week, many cancer surgeries, transplants, and heart procedures are being delayed, and many people experiencing emergent health conditions are too scared to go to the emergency room. That is likely why they are dying at home.

The New York Times actually reported this earlier in the week. “Emergency rooms have about half the normal number of patients, and heart and stroke units are nearly empty, according to doctors at many urban medical centers,” reported the Times. “Some medical experts fear more people are dying from untreated emergencies than from the coronavirus.” The new Oregon data corroborates this theory.

Again, this is why the fatality rate of the virus is so important. There’s a big difference between a 0.1-0.5 percent fatality rate and a 5-10 percent fatality rate, as we see if you merely divide the deaths by the known, confirmed, tested cases. It’s not that a highly contagious virus with a fatality rate at or slightly higher than that of the flu, especially for elderly people, is not a serious situation. It’s that, in a cost-benefit analysis, it doesn’t warrant the level of panic that will keep people from seeking medical attention who, without it, are more likely to die from their existing ailment than from catching the virus.

The panic sowed into the culture by the political class and media is passive, but the indefensible shutdown of health care procedures even for those who seek help is actively insidious. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that there is now a backlog of thousands of surgeries for cancer resections, heart procedures, gallbladder removals, surgeries for those born with serious genetic organ problems, and complex children’s orthopedic surgeries. Minnesota had fewer than 1,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet the state arbitrarily shut down health care and caused the furloughing of 40 percent of the staff at the Mayo Clinic, where so many vital surgeries are performed.

Let’s just try to quantify the loss of life from the delay of cancer screenings, biopsies, diagnostics, and surgeries. The difference between conducting these procedures immediately and delaying them a few weeks, much less a few months or longer, is often the difference between dealing with an operable tumor and an inoperable tumor.

Last week, a group of researchers in the U.K. published a study attempting to quantify the loss of life resulting from delaying cancer surgeries. They found that a six-month delay in surgeries for patients with stage 2 or 3 cancers of the bladder, lung, esophagus, ovary, liver, pancreas, and stomach results in an over 30 percent reduction in survival. They found overall for all cancer patients that a six-month delay would result in 10,555 excess deaths and a cumulative loss of 205,024 life years in the U.K.

Obviously, their formula and modeling was only geared toward U.K. cancer surgery data, but if we extrapolate for America’s population, which is five times greater, that would be close to 53,000 cancer deaths and over 1 million life years lost. If this is allowed to continue, many surgeries will be delayed by a lot more than six months. The clock is ticking.

[Texas Eagle]

That much??? One roll per sitting?

[Redwood71]

The destruction of lives is just the lib accepted collateral damage in getting Trump in November. It is acceptable to destroy lives for their gains. They should be considered a CARTEL or a terrorist group. They are no different.

rwood

[RummyChick]

when they can get the free antibody test that should do it to see if it matches up.

Lots of problems with early tests and lots of problems with current antibody tests.

[Texas Eagle]

Amen.

To demonicRATS, politics is warfare by other means.

They've been trying to destroy this country since the '60s. The 1860s.

If not since 1776.

[TalBlack]

but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

And THAT my friends is how anyone with any functioning braincells knew that this bug was no monster. By the time anybody had any idea that something was up the bug had had all the time a killer bug would need to pile up a SHITLOAD of corpses. Bugs get around faster and easier and in ways that most people don’t think about or understand.

[mom.mom]

Absolutely!

This germ free isolated masked lifestyle is weakening our immune systems. We need the “bugs” to challenge and build our defenses. We’ll see spikes in cancer and other diseases worse than wuhan.

[Grampa Dave]

Talk to your ER RNs and ICU RNs about the patients who apparently have an aversion to using TP.

[nagant]

Sunshine and warmth will take care of this virus if politicians would just get out of the way.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article grundle. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Lockdown is killing more patients than the coronavirus"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Since the lockdown is “flattening the curve,” the number of people that might have died because of COVID-19 without lockdown will never be known. This is especially the case if victims had been denied medical services because such services had been filled to capacity under no lockdown.

Corrections, insights welcome.

In my non-medical opinion, consider taking vitamin D3, if you can find any, to protect yourself from SARS-CoV-2 and lockdown.

[fireman15]

Lots of problems with early tests and lots of problems with current antibody tests.

I know that you and I agree on basically everything so the following is not intended to be a correction but an affirmation.

If this was not a politically charged atmosphere... there would be few if any complaints about the accuracy of any of the tests. The complaints are mostly from people who have agendas that are shown to be invalid by test results.

I firmly believe in our area, the eastern part of King and Snohomish Counties in Washington, the first to have recorded cases and deaths in the USA this virus was being passed around for a good month if not longer before the medical community first figured it out. We are going to have dozens of studies most of them complete crap, which is how politicians an lawyers hide the truth.

Outside of densely populated areas where people tend to get a high viral load on first contact and nursing facilities with lots of vulnerable residents... this was never going to have been any more serious than a bad flu year. The “lockdowns” have been mostly counterproductive. Any solution that has been applied the same to all communities in greater than a county by county basis has been mostly a waste in the majority of locations. Compared to the big killers, cancer, heart disease, lung disease and diabetes, this thing will not even make a historical blip on the screen.

[RummyChick]

I am watching Drs talk about the tests. Verified Drs.

So yes, there are problems.

As an example, one lady is languishing for weeks in the hospital because the nursing home wants two negative tests and the Dr can’t get them. He is sure she is well but the tests are positive.

And we know in study after study and report after report that people are sick but testing negative only to test positive a few days later...just like patient 0 who was already in the hospital in Washington and tested negative,.and then positive.

.
The Texags site is filled with controversy over the antibody test including a biochemist who is working in all things to do with this virus. His company isnt going to release a test until they are certain it is reliable.

the reason I suggest an antibody test is not that I think those people didnt have it.

It will help show the validity of the antibody test

There is much talk on the Texags site that goes over my head as it relates to the antibody test but no one should feel comfortable about the result just based on one test..

Perhaps the new one will be more accurate

[fireman15]

So yes, there are problems.

Of course we all want the tests to be as accurate as possible... but a few anecdotal situations do not necessarily indicate that the tests we currently have are very bad. I am not sure how old you are... until 1972 we were given a smallpox vaccine that left a scar where it was administered on most people's arms.

It was not injected in the normal way, they used “a special bifurcated (two-prong) needle. Instead of puncturing the skin one time, the person administering the vaccine will make multiple punctures in the skin to deliver the virus to the skin’s dermis, which is the layer just below the epidermis that is visible to the world. The vaccine doesn’t penetrate to the deeper skin layers, such as the subcutaneous tissue. When the virus reaches this dermal layer, it starts to multiply. This causes a small, round bump known as a papule to develop. The papule then develops into a vesicle, which looks like a fluid-filled blister. Ultimately, this blistered area will scab over. While this signals what doctors usually regard as a successful vaccination, it can leave a mark for some people.

When my wife was in elementary scool she was given the smallpox vaccine several times over the course of a month because she was not getting the expected mark on her arm. Her teachers kept accusing her of rubbing the vaccine off of her arm and messing it up. They came up with various creative punishments to try and keep her from doing it. Her dad was finally asked to come to the school where it was explained to him why he needed to punish her for repeatedly messing up the vaccination.

Fortunately for my wife her dad never had the expected mark form on his arm when he had been given the vaccine multiple times years before. He was finally told by one of the army doctors that he had a natural immunity to small pox. He told the school officials and my wife's teachers to pound sand.

Tests for any biological agent do not give the expected result on everyone. We are all different. Even if the tests were somehow perfect and “100% accurate” there would still be some individuals who would not get accurate results. In this politically charged atmosphere there are going to be people who will argue that the results of any study that contradicts whatever their agenda is, are invalid. The tests are the first tools that will be challenged every time.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that the tests are bad even if doctors are the ones who are blathering about them. I have heard some real doozies lately coming from people who should know better. Lately I have heard medical people here argue that if an antibody test is only 99.9% accurate that still means that out of 350 million people that 350 thousand will get inaccurate results so this is not good enough. It is true, but laughable.

[fireman15]

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3843483/posts

I guess this is the type of thing that you are talking about...

[fireman15]

Sorry, I guess this the type of issue you are referring to.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3843483/posts