Following the herd

The populist consensus against full lockdowns to fight coronavirus is backed by science. Scientific journals know it, but they're refusing to publish scientific findings, solely because of their implications.

Herd immunity is the idea that once an infection reaches a certain number of people, its spread is significantly limited. Vaccines rely on herd immunity. But there's some out there who think people should catch coronavirus on purpose to artificially speed up the process, as no vaccine is available yet. I'm not a fan of this approach, because it would amass its own death toll.

But what if it's already happened? We don't get a choice to reverse it once it's already occurred.

Many have said that in order for coronavirus to reach herd immunity, it would have to infect 60 to 70% of people. Folks act like this number is etched in stone, and that no new discoveries can change it. However, the number of new cases in a county, state, or country usually drops precipitously when about 15% are infected. In some high-density communities, it's higher, because it spreads faster there, but it appears lower in other places.

This is clear. Areas like New York City that were hard hit in April now have few cases. When cases in Arizona and Florida peaked, I predicted the same would happen there - and now it is. These areas are now doing much better than many places that have never had many cases. Also keep in mind that, because of the inexcusable testing gaps, the number of actual infections in the U.S. is perhaps 10 times the number of known cases.

Of course it's herd immunity, and anyone who's been paying attention knows it. We didn't choose it. It simply happened. Are we supposed to deny herd immunity is even real just because the threshold is lower than what we believed in March?

Scientists certainly know it now. But why is the herd immunity limit lower than we thought? That's because older estimates didn't account for things like T-cells from other coronaviruses providing some immunity, people having different amounts of exposure to possibly infected individuals, age differences, and whether people have underlying conditions.

Findings containing new estimates have been submitted to scientific journals. Publishers of these journals know the studies have just as much merit as anything else, but they won't publish the findings. Why? One journal was quoted as saying: "Given the implications for public health, it is appropriate to hold claims around the herd immunity threshold to a very high evidence bar, as these would be interpreted to justify relaxation of interventions, potentially placing people at risk."

In other words, they don't want people to know about the lower threshold, because it might encourage them to purposely get infected. They don't even want public officials to know, because it might coax them to lift some restrictions that are still in place. These publications know the findings are valid, but they don't trust public officials or the masses with this knowledge.

Why shouldn't some restrictions be lifted in places where herd immunity has significantly reduced cases? And how can a journal act like herd immunity can be reversed once it's already happened?

To not publish valid scientific findings is dishonest and Orwellian. It also represents a complete breakdown of trust. But why should a scientific journal try to reinforce only the beliefs that already exist? Science is supposed to be about progress and new discoveries - not working backwards from a conclusion. I don't believe some of the same scientific ideas I once did, because newer science replaced them.

Rewriting science is as bad as the media rewriting history to favor their goofy economic and military theories.