The common thread among all of this coverage is that they all focus on the system, rather than the human. There’s this concept called “capacity” that we all somehow need to know about, and we all need to make decisions because of it. The entire concept is backwards. It’s a fundamentally utilitarian mindset that stems from a fundamental misrepresentation of how systems work, and an inverted moral philosophy that prioritizes systems over people. Hospitals were built for humankind, not humankind for the hospital.
Second-order effects on mortality were not measured in real time like SARS-COV2 cases. Why? What we measure matters. What we don’t measure might actually just matter even more. Months and years later we are still accounting for how the Covid-19 response disrupted life and cost lives in many other ways we simply chose to ignore.
The entire proposition is just silly. The concept of innate differences in populations is a well established consideration for those who study population health. One might think that our nations most prestigious newspaper might require their top writer to consult with population health experts or even an actuarial scientist in order to obtain a more informed perspective and give the data more rigorous analysis.
As we finally move past this massive psychological experiment, we should address the secondary effects that masks have had on our society, especially our children, and one day actually insist that our government and public health leaders commit to risk/benefit analysis instead of blindly following the urge to “do something.”
One of the reasons we were told masks were essential for school kids this year was that masks would reduce the likelihood of school closures, by reducing disease incidence. Unfortunately, like so much the CDC has promised, the opposite turns out to be true.