Saturday, May 2, 2020

What Bergstrom and Dean Don't Say About the COVID-19 Lockdown

Dr. Carl T. Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington, and Dr. Natalie Dean, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, have an op-ed out in The New York Times, titled, What the Proponents of ‘Natural’ Herd Immunity Don’t Say.

They argue that "there would be nothing quick or painless about reaching herd immunity without a vaccine."

Although they do not come out and say it in a straightforward fashion, they appear to be clearly in the camp that suggests the world should be on lockdown until a vaccine is developed.

But there are a few problems here with regard to "what they don't say."

First, they provide no time frame as to when a vaccine will be developed, so there is no way to determine what the lockdown burden will be.

They don't say what the human costs of the lockdown will be in terms of suicides, domestic abuse, child abuse, child molestation and deaths caused by serious diseases gone undiagnosed.

Bergstrom and Dean seem to focus on the COVID-19 problem as an absolute, absent the fundamental fact that all human action is based on choices where risk can never be eliminated and that each individual has his own risk profile.

Many skydive, hang glide, fly in planes, and drive or ride in automobiles. Many cross streets. None of these activities are without risk. And the willingness to take different risks are individual in nature.

Bergstrom and Dean appear to adopt a one-size-fits-all perspective on risk which aims at eliminating risk of death from COVID-19 for all by way of lockdown until a vaccine is discovered. Though they never discuss the risks of what taking such a vaccine will be.

This is all very odd positioning since those who fear COVID-19 for any reason can simply isolate themselves until a vaccine becomes available (if one ever does) and those who are willing to risk getting infected or who want to "live before they die" can go on with their choices.

What is it with this draconian desire to make everyone obey in lockstep with a risk profile that can't possibly fit everyone in the entire world?

There is really nothing scientific about suggesting policy prescriptions that don't take into account that all individuals have different risk profiles---and where the tradeoffs with the dangers of different policy directions are not presented to understand the true nature of the risks and reward tradeoffs.



  1. What NO MSM organ (other than, perhaps Fox News here and there) will ever say:

    Anything about immune deficiencies, vitamin D, sunshine or good news about possible treatments like hydroxychloroquine. Whether or not hydroxychloroquine works, the treating physicians insist that the treatment MUST consist of hydroxychlorquine (not chloroquine) plus the antibiotic avithromycin and zinc. Numerous reports on YouTube suggest that trials are being performed that appear to deliberately not include zinc and often not avithromycin either.

    Further, there is never a report of how many "positive cases" include no symptoms, mild flu symptoms, more severe flu symptoms vs. cases which proceed to severe breathing problems. There is never any mention of stronger immune systems in the summer or that blacks and nursing home residents are notoriously vitamin D deficient. Absolultely nothing is being done to protect the truly vulnerable while everything horrible is being done to those who have little to fear from the virus. Perhaps the authorities are trying desperately to slow down herd immunity so that we have a full winter flu season next year in which to infect the public and really scare them to death.

    Why do we innocent citizens have the burden of proof to demonstrate anything? The government and media reporting of this virus follows that endless pattern of government lying as in hiding Obama's overthrow of the Ukraine government and U.S. support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.

    The coverage of this virus is like the coverage of the Federal Reserve or the wars. The truth we know to be true is never allowed to be mentioned. And it never is. Ever.

    This government crackdown is far more sinister than people seem to think.

  2. I have been following Bergstrom closely as you linked to his work very early in the PANdemIC. He is a total hypocrite. He demands rigorous scientific methodology for any scientific evidence that counters his views, but has no standards for any evidence he supports or policies he favors.

    Indeed the scientists have fallen into two camps: those that support the Imperial College model and those that support the Oxford University model. The left attached themselves to Imperial and the right attached themselves to Oxford. It's amazing to watch.

    Just go ask Bergstrom for the double blind studies that show lockdowns and social distancing produces the fewest overall deaths. And then watch him get upset and claim something is better than nothing! Lol he is such a fucking douche.

    1. Thank you for your thoughts on Dr. Bergstrom. As you pointed out he seems to be in the "wait until the vaccine" to resolve this plandemic. Do you know where is he getting his money/funding? I know he is affiliated with UW. But are there other sources of funding? >like B Gates possibly? Should you have anything else on this guy I'd be interested hearing more. Thanks

    2. I think I just answered my own question. I did a search combing "bill and melinda gates foundation funding university of washington" and I came up with the link below. Back in 2017 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation boosted the vital work of the UW’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation - to the tune of $279 million. It is a 10 year grant of funds. So there is a direct tie-in with Dr. Gates!

      here is the link:

  3. Professor is full of shit. He deliberately lies about mortality (by an order of magnitude, no less!) The rest of his musings are just as science-based, treat accordingly. And NYT has a well-deserved reputatation of habitually lying leftist propaganda outlet.