Doc Posts Twitter Thread On The ‘Unknown Side Effect Of Lengthy Lockdowns’ Related To COVID-19 And Lack Of Exposure To The Common Cold
Ideas have consequences. In this case, the idea is that holing up in our homes and wearing masks when we venture outside will protect us from risks. But what are the trade-offs?
Most of the time, when we bring up the topic of trade-offs, they are addressing concepts like economic shutdowns, psychological effects of isolation, delays in medical treatment and diagnosis, and so on.
One doctor took the question in a different direction.
Will our non-exposure to the regular viruses our bodies quietly battle all the time change the danger levels of the one virus that has so many people running scared?
Here is Dr. James Todaro in his own words:
1/ An unknown side effect of lengthy lockdowns may be decreased crossover immunity to COVID-19.
Research on SARS-CoV-1 suggests that lack of exposure to the common cold coronaviruses could actually worsen morbidity and mortality in those who do eventually get COVID-19.
— James Todaro, MD (@JamesTodaroMD) September 18, 2020
3/ The difference in mortality was astounding.
100% of the mice infected with the general coronavirus first, then with SARS-CoV-1 survived (black circles at top).
Whereas 0% of the mice infected w/ only SARS-CoV-1 survived (black boxes).
(Significant difference with P<0.0001) pic.twitter.com/YPe68ZTR7I
— James Todaro, MD (@JamesTodaroMD) September 18, 2020
5/ If lockdowns and social distancing are indeed decreasing the spread of common cold coronaviruses, our immune systems may be losing their "priming" over time.
This may actually result in increased morbidity/mortality from COVID-19 down the road.
— James Todaro, MD (@JamesTodaroMD) September 18, 2020
Is he pulling ideas out of thin air? Nope.
This is based on empirical scientific observations. The National Center for Biotechnology Information study link can be found here.
Is that science-y enough for ya?
This brings us to the obvious policy question.
With such a wide disparity of regional practices and results both within the US and outside of our borders, what do we REALLY mean when we say our policy ‘believes the science’?
There is an old axiom that you cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.
When we try to make policy determinations ‘based on the science’, we’re fudging the numbers more than a little. We aren’t making, in the strictest sense, scientific decisions at all.
They are policy decisions.
The only way policy decisions can be arrived at is in the same way any other policy can be arrived at — by an informed consideration of the known variables in play, balancing them against each other, weighing the importance of mutually exclusive benefits or goals against their known trade-offs and taking your best shot in moving forward.
In other words — policy decisions are, as these things must necessarily be — a political decision.
Let’s all keep this in mind the next time someone wags his finger at us while lecturing about ‘the science’.
We can ask him which experiment, precisely, indicates which sort of policy response best covers all the competing variables and outcomes under consideration.