Q&A: A Creative and Original Solution to the Coronavirus Pandemic, Based on the British Model
A Creative and Original Solution to the Coronavirus Pandemic, Based on the British Model
Question
Hello and blessings,
I would like to propose an innovative solution to the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences.
As is known, there are currently two approaches in the wider world:
1. The accepted approach is to isolate the virus carriers, in order to prevent infection of the at-risk population. The difficulty with this method is the unending chase after carriers who infect others in geometric progression. There is no forecast for when the virus will be eradicated, and even if they do manage to isolate all the carriers, in the near or distant future an infected tourist from abroad could arrive (or there could be intentional infection by a hostile actor), and the chase would begin all over again. It is a chase after the wind.
The price of this conduct is economic and social, because of the severe restrictions the authorities impose on employment. Another price is the psychological one, as the public lives in uncertainty and is very worried about infection and about restrictions and their consequences that may be imposed on them (the uncertainty is a significant factor both economically and psychologically).
2. The British approach is to isolate the at-risk population (although it was recently reported that the government has abandoned the plan – https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322017). In such a situation, the healthy population gets the virus and develops “herd immunity,” and after a period the virus can no longer spread, since most of the population is immune. The economic benefit is obvious—there are no restrictions at all on the public.
The difficulty with this method from the standpoint of the healthy population is the expected hospitalization rate, because even when the at-risk population is isolated, a healthy population that gets sick all at once still requires hospitalization on a larger-than-usual scale, and the health services may collapse.
From the standpoint of the at-risk population, the difficulty is total isolation for many months. Such a population would have to be closed off completely, with no access to food stores, medication, or leisure. In many cases this population relies on caregivers or family members, and under this method it would have to part from them for many long months. There is also a moral problem with this method if in the end it raises the mortality rate in the population.
I would like to propose a middle solution: closed and isolated places could be set up for coronavirus patients, except that healthy people would be brought into these places with the aim of becoming infected knowingly and becoming immune. These compounds would be located in hotels, and the stay there would be on the level of a vacation, paid for by the state. The government would offer the public a two-week vacation at a hotel, where the participant would be infected directly or indirectly, and during the illness period he would be “vacationing,” while also enjoying what the place has to offer (leisure activities). The participant could also be compensated for lost work during this period. Of course, the place would be equipped with advanced medical services.
This solution brings a personal benefit to the participant, and a national benefit:
On the personal level, someone who goes through this vacation can be sure he cannot get sick again, and therefore poses no danger to his immediate surroundings, for example to his elderly parents. The person would also be freed from any future period of isolation under any circumstances. Even when various restrictions are announced, he would be allowed to move around and live normally, since he poses no danger. Suppose he flies to a foreign country—he would be exempt there from the duty of quarantine, because he cannot pose a danger (as opposed to the current situation, in which a person can spend two weeks in quarantine and then be in the wrong place at the wrong time and become obligated in quarantine again).
On the national level, there is a double gain. First, the problem is solved: there is no concern about renewed infection, neither in the near term nor in the long term, because the healthy public develops herd immunity. The second gain is that there is no situation of ‘uncertainty.’ A program like this, even if it costs the state a lot of money, can be costed in advance. The Treasury and the stock market would know how much the coronavirus crisis costs, and that certainty would improve the financial situation in all sectors—private, business, and governmental.
I would be glad to know: A) what is your opinion when comparing the accepted solution with the British solution?
B) what is your opinion regarding the solution I proposed?
P.S. I ignored the possibility of developing a vaccine for the virus, because there is no precise forecast for when the vaccine will be available for mass use.
Answer
An interesting idea, but it is hard for me to judge it. On first thought, intentional infection of the population would increase the total number of sick people over time. If the mortality rate among the sick is a given, then we have also increased the number of deaths. True, relative to the British policy it looks similar (there too the percentage of sick people would be similar, although in my opinion in your case there would be more sick people, because in the end you intentionally infect the whole population), but even with the British method I do not know whether this is justified.
Discussion on Answer
Is it worth passing the idea on to the decision-makers?
And if so, then to whom, and how?
It is definitely worth it. I do not know to whom or how. Maybe search online for places in the Ministry of Health or the defense establishment that ask for suggestions from the public.
With Heaven’s help, 23 Adar 5780
If the healthy young people are gathered together (and this can be verified by testing), then in essence they could be drafted into reserve duty for a “labor army” that would run the shut-down economy in a supervised and safe way.
As for the question of how to reach the decision-makers: in principle, members of Knesset have email addresses listed on the Knesset website. From my past experience, limited to MKs from the Jewish Home party, the only one who answered and related to the inquiry was MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, but he is no longer in the Knesset. Still, since he knows many decision-makers, it is possible that even today contacting him could bear fruit.
As for 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 send an email to Rabbi Aryeh Deri, and may God help you.
Best regards, S.Tz.
It may also help to contact Nobel Prize laureate Professor Israel Aumann, who is on good terms with Defense Minister Naftali Bennett.
According to the information online, the experts still do not know whether someone who recovered from coronavirus is immune to it again. The assumption is that yes, but there is no certainty about it. If not, then the idea is ineffective.
Thank you, S.Tz.
I sent it to Deri. 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 nursing care. I was afraid that one of the family members would get infected and infect him. I asked our family doctor to let me be infected with the virus intentionally, so that after I recovered I could care for him safely.
To Benjamin—the information you brought is not correct. Claims like that were raised, but in the end it became clear that they originated in a data-entry mistake and in the measuring tools.
To S.Tz.—and regarding your refinement proposal, it is not possible to send healthy young people who have not gone through the disease, because although the risk to them is negligible, they can become infected and infect others in risk groups.
One more note: my proposal is not meant to replace the other methods; it can be carried out in parallel.
I proposed the solution to Professor Yoram Lass, former Director General of the Ministry of Health, who is known for his view dismissing concern over the coronavirus:
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322593#utm_source=Apps&utm_medium=SharedTo
He answered me that “it is hard to believe that a sufficient number of people would agree to be infected knowingly.”
Any progress?
I sent it to several decision-makers (Litzman, Deri, the Director General of the Ministry of Health, etc.). I did not receive any response.
I also sent it to Professor Yoram Lass, who was formerly Director General of the ministry and today argues that the British model is the correct one.
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001322593#utm_source=Apps&utm_medium=SharedTo
He replied, with reference to the program I proposed: “It is hard to believe that a sufficient number of people would agree to be infected knowingly.”
I want to raise a question here related to statistics; maybe I am missing something.
The danger in a pandemic is its spread in geometric progression.
Now I take the spread over the first five days of the month and average it, and I get an average daily increase of 20.2% (43%+20%+0%+25%+13%, divided by 5 gives 20.2%).
And now the average of the last five days gives an average daily increase of 26.6% (27%+56%4%25%21%, divided by 5 gives 26.6%).
Source for the 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 that say about all the steps the government has been taking lately? They do not seem to affect the growth curve at all. Can someone explain this to me?
Could it be that it is still too early to see an effect?
Israel
You cannot draw an impression from those data. There are changes in treatment and policy that have an effect. You do not know the time constant of the exponent. Measurements like these are best left to the experts. This is certainly not something they are missing. Suggestions for a different policy can of course always be helpful, but here we are talking about measurements that are surely being made, and I assume that whoever is making them knows the job.
Of course I wrote too quickly.
Exponential growth is characterized precisely by multiplication by a constant factor (a constant percentage increase) every day, or every fixed period of time. So the data you brought point exactly to growth that is even faster than exponential.
So what does that actually mean?
Do you agree that there is growth here that is faster than an exponential function, and you are only telling me that I should trust the system?
I do not see any possible explanation for the phenomenon, unless we say that it takes time from the restrictions until the results are visible on the ground, because the symptoms that lead to diagnosis of the disease appear only after several days.
I am only noting that growth by a constant percentage is exponential growth. (I thought you were saying it was slow.) But everything I wrote above still stands.
Regarding the video you linked, I would be glad if you could tell me in a word or two what is said there, because I have filtering that for now prevents me from viewing it.
Regarding the solution I proposed, on second thought it is not practical because of the time limitation.
With a spread calculation of 25% per day (as we are seeing now, despite all the steps and restrictions that have been imposed), within a month the entire population of the country is infected (if we do not take into account the fact that someone infected once is not infected a second time, and that he forms a barrier because of his immunity; I do not know how to calculate that).
Now, a cycle of people who immunize themselves voluntarily takes more than a month, because the virus remains in the body up to 40 days from the moment of infection. Passing a large part of the population through the voluntary-infection process would take several months.
It is not possible to bring the entire healthy population in all at once for voluntary infection, but only in shifts, because there need to remain free people to keep the economy running and take care of their children, their parents, or the sick. Beyond that, convincing the public and recruiting it to the program also takes time.
That means that if we had been standing a few months before the pandemic, we might perhaps have been able to take this course. Now it is too late.
In my method there is a much lower danger than in the British method.
In the British method the disease is circulating in the streets, and I have no full control that it will not reach people in the risk group.
By contrast, in my method, I create a clear separation.
Only young and completely healthy people are admitted to the hotel, and that can be verified by testing; among them the danger rate is negligible, and there is no mortality. Whereas all the people who are in any kind of risk remain outside.