Skip to main content

Shut Downs Likely to Result in More COVID-19 Deaths than if Nothing Were Done


More people will die as a result of COVID-19 because we closed the schools than would have if we’d kept the schools open or if we’d brought the kids back to school in summer.

That is part of the message from Knut M. Wittkowski, who headed the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University in New York, when he was interviewed around April 6. (The Rockefeller University is a private graduate college focusing on biological and medical sciences, providing doctoral and postdoctoral education and with which 36 Nobel laureates have been affiliated.) In effect, the same message was given by experts cited by 1889 Institute in a March 24 statement decrying the plan to turn out public schools for the year.

Dr. Wittkowski explains in detail that “herd immunity” is critical, indeed absolutely essential, to end a respiratory disease pandemic. Herd immunity occurs when at least 80 percent of a population has been exposed to the disease and developed antibodies necessary to become immune. When this occurs, an infected, symptomatic individual is unlikely to infect anybody else. Thus, the remaining 20 percent of the population are protected, without a vaccine and without having contracted the virus.

The quickest way to have developed herd immunity would have been to keep children in school so that their close proximity would cause them to pass the virus around and develop immunity. Instead, we’ve done the opposite, and more people than otherwise are likely to die.

It was known, very early on, that COVID-19 was, by far, hardest on the elderly (as are all respiratory infections, but COVID-19 is unusually nonlethal for the young) and on people with other illnesses. With public service announcements from government giving isolation suggestions for vulnerable sub-populations, they could have (and still possibly could if the right actions are taken, but it may be too late) waited out the development of herd immunity, and they could be emerging from isolation by now. Public service announcements would have (and could) provide advice for how caregivers and family members could care for the vulnerable among us.

As it is, Dr. Wittkowski points out that we are increasingly likely to suffer another bloom of COVID-19 disease this fall, for lack of herd immunity. Consequently, people will die who would otherwise not have died. Respiratory disease inevitably gets passed around among family members, unless they are well educated on how to prevent it, one way being to go outside rather than to isolate together inside a home. In multi-generational households, the government’s shelter in place advice (and orders, in some states) have actually put the most vulnerable at greater risk, not lesser. In some states, non-essential business shut down orders have closed dry-cleaners, where viruses on clothes would have been killed. These foolish policies have prolonged COVID-19’s existence in many instances. 

At the time of this writing, official statistics on deaths due to COVID-19 in the United States indicate that no one under the age of 25 has been killed by it. That is not to say that no one under 25 has fallen ill from the virus or that some have not been gravely ill. But clearly, this pandemic disease is more dangerous the older one gets. The risks COVID-19 present for school-age children is lower than the risks they face from flu. None of this nuance has been taken into account (nuance that has been known for some time) in the liberty-robbing general policies that have been pursued up to now by all levels of government.

As Dr. Wittowski pointed out, Americans, and many in other countries, have been way too docile in allowing their freedoms to be compromised. People should be asking their representatives hard questions, educating themselves regarding what ALL the epidemiological experts are saying. As the good doctor reminds us, if we don’t stand up for our own rights, those rights will be forgotten.

Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best