We’ve learned a lot about Covid-19 since this novel coronavirus first emerged in China in early 2020. We learned early that the elderly are much more at risk than the young. Now we know men are at higher risk than women.

Jon Kamp and Jason Douglas write of this new revelation in The Wall Street Journal. They state that in the U.S., federal data show men represent about two-thirds of Covid-19 deaths among middle-aged people, and similar trends have emerged overseas. This may be related to higher incidences of comorbidities like high blood pressure and diabetes in men than women.

There may be other factors such as better immune systems in women. Research has shown men are more prone to poor hand hygiene, lax mask wearing habits and delaying medical care. “This is more than a significant trend. This clearly is a reality that this disease is more aggressive in men than women, “ said Lawrence Young, professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, in England.

Women have been hit hard by Covid-19 too, especially in the elderly. U.S. death-certificate data show women make up about 60% of all Covid-19 deaths among people at least 85 years old, the most affected age group. This may, in part, be explained by the fact that fewer men are alive at that age than women. Many of these women are living in nursing homes which have been devastated by Covid-19 outbreaks.

Overall, men make up about 54% of U.S. deaths, and a significantly higher portion in middle age. Men make up nearly 66% of more than 42,000 Covid-19 deaths occurring among people between their mid-30s and mid-60s.

 

The European data for men are worse. In Europe, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control says men represent 73% of deaths of those from 40 to 69 years old. Data there also show men are 62% of the hospitalized population aged 40 to 69, and nearly three-quarters of the sickest patients in that age bracket.

Kamp and Douglas say, “More broadly, a global database effort spanning 183 countries called the Sex, Gender and Covid-19 Project based at University College London found about 11 known Covid-19 cases among males for every 10 cases among females, and 14 male deaths for every 10 female deaths. There are some variations within these trends, and some countries aren’t reporting detailed sex-based data, which researchers say is sorely needed to help identify risks.

The chance for severe illness and death with Covid-19 rises steeply with age but is also closely tied to a person’s underlying health. Multiple studies have found people with conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension tend to be at greater risk of a bad outcome if they catch the virus—conditions that men are more likely to have in general, or at earlier ages.”

 

Mask wearing is bad, then its good. Lockdowns are critical, then they aren’t, then they are, again. Hydroxychloroquine is the panacea, then it isn’t. It’s hard to know what to believe when it comes to Covid information and what strategies make sense.

In California you can’t even dine outside, let alone inside, unless you’re a politician. In Texas you’re told to avoid travel, unless you’re the mayor of Austin. In New York schools are dangerous, unless you send your kids to private school. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says hair salons are dangerous, unless she’s getting her hair done. With all this hypocrisy coming from government officials, who are we to believe and what is really necessary?

Jay Bhattacharya, epidemiologist, healthcare economist and health policy expert at Stanford University, seems as well qualified as anyone, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, to give us truth without bias. Recently, he spoke at a Hillsdale College Free Market Forum and he simplified our understanding of the Covid pandemic to date. He discussed the following topics:

• The Covid-19 Fatality Rate
• Who is at risk?
• Deadliness of the Lockdowns
• Where to go from here

 

The Covid-19 Fatality Rate

After initial misinformation in early March, we assumed the “case fatality rate” in the U.S. was roughly 3 percent. In other words, nearly three out of every hundred people who were identified as “cases” of Covid-19 in early March died from it. This data came from the World Health Organization (WHO) which has lost much of its credibility since when they tried to cover up China’s involvement in this pandemic.

Since then we know the Covid fatality rate is about 0.2 to 0.3 percent. In other words, two or three out of every thousand with Covid infection will die of the disease. This is a huge adjustment in the fatality rate because we now know that many people who are infected are asymptomatic and up to 80% will have mild disease.

The most accurate method of determining the true prevalence of the disease is seroprevalence testing. This means obtaining blood samples from the general population and testing for evidence of antibodies that indicate exposure to the virus. A study of this type was conducted in Santa Clara County, California by Dr. Bhattacharya and his colleagues and led to our current understanding of the true fatality rates. (see Epidemiologists Reject Political Correctness)

Who is at risk?

Covid-19 infection is not equally dangerous for everyone. We learned early on that the elderly and sick were at much higher risk than children and young people. Yet this important discovery has been muted by politicians who even today insist upon closing schools where infections are practically non-existent. This has been largely influenced by teachers unions. Dr. Bhattacharya says Covid-19 is less dangerous for children than seasonal flu. In fact, more children have died this year in the U.S. from seasonal flu than from Covid.

However, it is much more deadly than the seasonal flu for older people. The Covid fatality rate for people over 70 and up is about four percent – four in every 100 of these people will die from Covid infection; most of them with serious co-morbidities such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and chronic lung disease. These huge differences in risk between younger and older people should have major implications for health policy makers, but unfortunately, politics has often swayed decision makers more than science.

Deadliness of the Lockdowns

According to Dr. Bhattacharya, lockdowns have never before been tried as a method of disease control. Nor were lockdowns part of the original plan. The initial rationale for lockdowns was that slowing the spread of the disease would prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. This never materialized. Yet lockdowns continue today and in some places are expanding. These seem to be mostly in states governed by Democrats.

The price of these lockdowns has been economic recession – with devastating effects on human lives. Ignoring the economic hardships for the moment, Dr. Bhattacharya says the U.N. has estimated that 130 million additional people will starve this year as a result of the economic damage from lockdowns. He notes that in the last 20 years we’ve lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. But that process is being reversed with lockdowns.

Lockdowns have also contributed to fewer children receiving immunizations against disease such as diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), measles and polio. Parents have feared going to their pediatricians because of Covid when these other diseases are far more deadly. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases.

Many adults with cancer failed to receive regular chemotherapy for fear of Covid. Others skipped recommended cancer screening. These changes in normal behavior will result in higher rates of cancer disease and death. The data is already showing these effects.

Mental health statistics may be the most alarming. A CDC study in June found that one in four young adults between 18 and 24 had seriously considered suicide. Young people are not meant to live alone and interruption of normal socialization is having devastating impacts.

Where do we go from here?

The Great Barrington Declaration is a policy statement co-authored by Dr. Bhattacharya along with Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. The full statement can be read on their website www.gbdeclaration.org. To date it has been signed by over 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners. Here is a brief description of their philosophy:

“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus thorugh natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

It can be summarized in the following points:

The Great Barrington Declaration:

• Protect the vulnerable – especially in nursing homes; they should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of staff and all visitors. Retired elderly people living at home should have groceries and other essential delivered.
• Allow everyone else to resume normal activities
• Open the schools – children are at minimal risk
• Eliminate lockdowns – they do more harm than good
• Resume arts, music, sports and other cultural activities – Those at more risk may choose not to participate if they wish.

 

These general policies should be accompanied by sensible precautions – hand washing, staying home when sick, wearing masks in close proximity to those who are sick or vulnerable. The end of this pandemic will occur when herd immunity has been achieved. This end-state will be reached sooner as vaccines become readily available.

Dr. Bhattacharya concludes, “We know the people who are vulnerable, and we know the people who are not vulnerable. To continue to act as if we do not know these things makes no sense. . . We shouldn’t be afraid. We should respond to the Covid virus rationally: protect the vulnerable, treat the people who get infected compassionately, develop a vaccine. And while doing these things we should bring back the civilization that we had so that the cure does not end up being worse than the disease.”

 

(Author’s note: I signed the Great Barrington Declaration today.)

The United Kingdom just approved the Pfizer/BioNTeach vaccine for immediate use. They’re already distributing the vaccine over there. You’re probably wondering why it hasn’t been approved yet in the United States.

President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed made it possible for pharmaceutical companies to greatly shorten the time for development and approval of a new vaccine. Four companies entered Phrase III clinical trials of their vaccines by late summer. (see Vaccine Hope on the Way) Pfizer/BioNTech submitted their application to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) two weeks ago after they reported 95% efficacy. Moderna submitted their application one week later after similar results.

According to The Wall Street Journal editorial board, the FDA has scheduled an online public meeting December 10 with outside experts to discuss the authorization for Pfizer/BioNTech and allowed the public to submit comments. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn tweeted Dec. 3^rd, “Send your comments in before this group of outside experts meets to discuss a potential emergency use authorization for a Covid-19 vaccine.”

Who is in charge here, the FDA or some outside experts? The WSJ editorial board asks a similar question: “This is a nice gesture, but isn’t this supposed to be a scientific review?” They point out these outside “experts” will also have less knowledge than FDA scientists who have been working alongside vaccine makers over the last nine or so months providing real-time feedback on their clinical trials.

But it seems that Commissioner Hahn committed to this process in the fall as Democrats like Kamala Harris and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo warned the Trump Administration was rushing approval. The conclusions should be obvious, but the WSJ editorial board says what you’re thinking: “In other words, this regulatory rigamarole is essentially a placebo to reassure the public it will be safe to get inoculated. There’s no evidence that a three-week review is needed. The U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, with 1,320 employees scrutinized Pfizer’s data on a rolling basis and the FDA with 17,000 staff could do the same.”

Naturally, Dr. Anthony Fauci, defender of all things political in this pandemic, defends the FDA’s slower review. He says, “We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA and the U.K. did not do it as carefully and they got a couple of days ahead.” This is unnecessarily conservative, but consistent with the FDA approach before Operation Warp Speed. Vaccine makers have no incentive to conceal safety problems given their reputation is at risk and their liability is enormous. There is no evidence they cut corners.

This unnecessary delay comes at an inopportune moment. The number of Covid positive tests is rising steadily and hospitalizations are up. The editorial board stresses the importance of vaccine approval as soon as possible: “Hospitals are strained by this surge of cases and staffing problems are likely to get worse. Nursing home residents, who would be prioritized for the vaccine, make up 40% or more of U.S. deaths. Delaying vaccine approval even a couple of weeks could lead to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of more deaths.”

Governor Cuomo has been credited with causing thousands of deaths in nursing homes in New York when he mandated nursing homes accept newly discharged Covid patients from the hospital. It looks like his efforts to “ensure the vaccine is safe” may cost thousands of more lives. This is the same guy who bemoaned the approval of a vaccine had come too soon because it would not be distributed by the Biden administration.You would think his failures in the past would make him humbler.