A creative and original solution to the coronavirus pandemic, based on the British model
Peace and blessings!
I would like to propose an innovative solution to the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences.
As you know, in the wider world there are currently two approaches:
1. The accepted approach is to isolate carriers of the virus, to prevent the infection of a population at risk . The difficulty with this method is the relentless pursuit of carriers who infect others in an engineering column. There is no predicting when the virus will be eradicated, and even if they do succeed in isolating all carriers, in the near or distant future an infected tourist from abroad (or deliberate infection by a hostile entity) could arrive, and start the pursuit all over again. This is a chase after the wind.
The cost of this behavior is economic and social, due to the severe restrictions that the authorities impose on employment. Another cost is the psychological cost, as the public lives in uncertainty, and is very afraid of contagion and the restrictions and their consequences that may apply to them (uncertainty is a significant factor in both the economic and psychological dimensions).
2. The British approach is to isolate the population at risk (although it was recently announced that the government has abandoned the plan – https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322017). In such a situation, the healthy population becomes ill with the virus and develops “herd immunity”, and after a period of time the virus cannot spread, because most of the population is vaccinated. The economic gain is clear – there are no restrictions on the public.
The difficulty with this method from the perspective of the healthy population is the expected hospitalization rate, because even when the at-risk population is isolated, a healthy population that falls ill all at once still requires greater hospitalization than usual, and health services may collapse.
For the population at risk, the difficulty is the complete isolation for many months. Such a population is supposed to be closed and enclosed, without access to food stores, medicine, or recreation. In many cases, this population is assisted by caregivers or family members, and in this method they are supposed to be separated from them for long months. There is also a moral problem with this method, if it ultimately increases the mortality rate in the population.
I would like to propose an interim solution: Closed and isolated places can be established for coronavirus patients, but healthy people will be brought into these places, with the aim of knowingly becoming infected and becoming vaccinated. These complexes will be located in hotels, and the stay there will be at a resort level, at the expense of the state. The government will offer the public a two-week hotel vacation, when the participant is directly or indirectly infected, and during the period of illness he is “on vacation”, and at the same time he enjoys what the place can offer (leisure activities). The participant can also be compensated for the loss of work during this period. Of course, the place will be equipped with advanced medical services.
This solution brings personal benefit to the participant, and national benefit:
On a personal level, someone who goes on this vacation is certain that they cannot get sick again, and therefore do not pose a danger to their immediate environment, for example to their elderly parents. The person will also be exempt from future isolation in any situation. Even when various restrictions are announced, they will be allowed to move around and live as usual, because they do not pose a danger. Suppose they fly to a foreign country, they will be exempt from the obligation to isolate there, because they cannot pose a danger (compared to the current situation where a person can stay in isolation for two weeks, then be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and commit to repeated isolation).
At the national level, there is a double benefit. The problem is also solved, there is no fear of re-infection either in the near or long term, because the healthy public develops herd immunity. The second benefit is that there is no situation of ‘uncertainty’. Such a plan, even if it costs the state a lot of money, can be estimated in advance. The Treasury and the stock exchange will know how much money the Corona crisis is costing, and certainty will improve the financial situation in all sectors, private, business and government.
I would like to know: A: What do you think when comparing the accepted solution to the British solution?
B: What do you think about the solution I proposed?
PS: I ignored the possibility of developing a vaccine for the virus, because there is no precise prediction of when the vaccine will be available for mass use.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In my method, there is much less danger than in the British method.
In the British method, the disease roams the streets, and I do not have full control that it will not affect people in the risk group.
In contrast, in my method, I make a clear separation.
Only young and completely healthy people are admitted to the hotel, in whom the percentage of danger is zero, and there is no mortality. While all people who are at any risk, remain outside.
Is there any point in passing the idea on to decision makers?
If so, then to whom, and how?
It's definitely worth it. I don't know who or how. Maybe search the Internet for places that ask for suggestions from the public in the Ministry of Health or Defense.
On the 23rd of Adar, 5721;F
If we concentrate the healthy young people (and this can be verified by testing), we can actually recruit them into the reserves for a “labor army” that will operate the occupied economy in a supervised and safe manner.
Regarding the question of how to reach the decision-makers? In principle, Knesset members have emails that appear on the Knesset website. From my past experience, which is limited to Jewish Home MKs, the only one who answers and addresses the request was MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, but he is no longer in the Knesset, but since he knows many decision-makers, it is possible that even today an appeal to him will bear fruit.
Regarding Haredi MKs, I have no acquaintance except for one time when I emailed MK Rabbi Deri, who responded to my inquiry and I saw that he took it seriously. So maybe you should send an email to Rabbi Aryeh Deri, and may God help you.
Best regards, Sh”t
It may also be useful to contact Nobel Prize winner Prof. Yisrael Oman, who is in good contact with Defense Minister Naftali Bennett.
According to information online, experts still don't know if someone who has recovered from coronavirus is immune to it again. The hypothesis is that they are, but there is no certainty about this. If not, the idea is ineffective.
Thank you for the email.
To Deri, I sent it. I would be happy if you could give me the email addresses of the others, because I am limited in my ability to find them due to internet filtering.
I will add that the idea came to me when I was worried about one of my family members who is in a risk group and needs constant care. I was afraid that one of the family members would get infected and infect him. I contacted my family doctor with a request to proactively get infected with the virus, so that I could safely treat him when I recover.
To Binyamin: The information you provided is incorrect. Such claims were made, but in the end it turned out that they originated from an error in data entry and the measurement tool.
To Shchel ”l – and regarding your improvement proposal, it is not possible to send healthy young people who have not had the disease, because even though the risk to them is zero, they can become infected and infect others in risk groups.
Another note, my proposal does not replace the other methods, it can be carried out in parallel.
I proposed the solution to Prof. Yoram Les, former Director General of the Ministry of Health, who is famous for his opinion that eliminates the fear of the coronavirus:
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322593#utm_source=Apps&utm_medium=SharedTo
He replied that ”it is hard to believe that a sufficient number of people would agree to knowingly become infected”.
Is there any progress?
I sent to several decision makers (Litzman, Deri, the Director General of the Ministry of Health, etc.). I did not receive a response.
I also sent to Prof. Yoram Les, who was previously the Director General of the Ministry, and today claims that the British model is the right one.
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322593#utm_source=Apps&utm_medium=SharedTo
He replied to me with reference to the plan I proposed: “It is hard to believe that a sufficient number of people would agree to knowingly become infected”.
I want to raise a question related to statistics here, maybe I missed something.
The danger in a pandemic is its exponential spread.
And here I take the spread of the first five days of the month and average it, I get an average daily increase of 20.2 (43% + 20% + 0% + 25% + 13%, divided by 5 comes out 20.2%).
And here is the average of the last five days, an average daily increase of 26.6% (27% + 56% 4% 25% 21%, divided by 5 comes out 26.6%).
Source of data: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A3_%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C#%D7%94%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C
What does this mean about all the steps the government is taking? Recently? They have no effect on the immigration graph at all. Can someone explain to me?
Could it be that it is still too early to see an effect?
Israel
You can't be impressed by these data. There are changes in treatment and policy that have an impact. You don't know what the time constant of the exponent is. Such measurements should be left to the experts. They probably don't miss that. Suggestions for different policies can of course always be useful, but here we are talking about measurements that are certainly being made and I assume that whoever makes them knows their job.
Of course I wrote too fast.
Exponential growth is characterized by exactly multiplying by a fixed factor (fixed percentage increase) every day, or every fixed period of time. So the data you just provided indicates an even faster increase than exponential.
https://youtu.be/fgBla7RepXU
So what does this actually mean?
Do you agree that there is a faster increase than an exponential function here, only you are telling me that I have to trust the system?
I see no possibility of explaining the phenomenon, unless it is said that it takes time for the restrictions to be seen on the ground, because the symptoms that lead to the diagnosis of the disease break out after a few days.
I'm just commenting that a constant percentage increase is an exponential increase. (I thought you were saying it was slow) But everything I wrote above is true.
Regarding the video you linked, I would be happy if you could explain to me in two words what is said there, because I have a filter that prevents me from seeing it for the time being.
Regarding the solution I proposed, on second thought it is not applicable due to a time limit.
Assuming a spread of 25% per day (as we are currently seeing, despite all the measures and restrictions that have been imposed), within a month the entire population of the country will be infected (if we do not take into account the fact that someone who is infected once will not be infected again, and that it constitutes a barrier due to their immunity, I do not know how to calculate this).
Now, the cycle of people who voluntarily get vaccinated takes more than a month, because the virus is in the body for up to 40 days from the moment of infection. Transferring a large part of the population through the process of voluntary infection will take several months).
It is not possible to voluntarily infect the entire healthy population at once, but rather in turn, because there must be free people left to operate the economy and take care of their children, parents, or the sick. Furthermore, convincing the public and recruiting them to the program also takes time.
That is, if we had been a few months ahead of the pandemic, we might have been able to take this step. Now it is too late.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
