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

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

Senator Sanders Misses the Mark On Oklahoma Education

Minimum Wage for Teachers Senator Sanders recently wrote an op-ed for the Oklahoman. Among other radical ideas, he proposes a federal minimum wage for teachers of $60,000. In a free market, a minimum wage hurts those who earn less than the minimum wage. If they can’t produce more value than the minimum wage, they will be unemployable. For teachers, who operate in a regulated market, it will still be more difficult for inexperienced teachers to find a job. Incentives to pursue further training and education, or to take on additional roles like advising clubs or coaching sports will be diminished. Or perhaps young teachers will be required to take on one or more of these extracurricular activities to justify their higher cost.   Lost in the promise of a minimum wage is the idea that the best teachers should be paid the most. Instead, most public school teachers in Oklahoma are paid in lockstep - meaning that an outstanding teacher makes the same as a mediocre teacher wit...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more