Editor:
I agree with some of John Henderson’s ideas (“New balance needed in COVID-19 response,” April 24) but he doesn’t go far enough. I agree with Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, Calif., who recently held a press conference that received considerable media attention. Between them, they share 40 years of studying immunology and microbiology and have been collecting and observing COVID-19 data for two months. Comparing it with the last published U.S. influenza data, they note: “Flu and COVID are similar in prevalence and death rates.” Comparing results in Norway (which has been in lockdown) and Sweden (with few restrictions), they found, “It’s not significantly useful to lock down.” And because “touching is what builds the immune system … when we open up there will be a huge amount of illness.” (And we rely on our immunity to protect us from many types of disease, not just respiratory illness.) They emphasize the secondary effects of social isolation and lockdown: child molestation by jobless, angry, intoxicated people; spousal abuse; anxiety and depression; suicide; collapse of the medical system; school closures; economic collapse. They say, “These things will affect people for a lifetime, not just a season.” They ask/answer: “Do we need to test people? Yes. Do we need to shelter in place? Emphatically no. Do we need businesses to shut down? Emphatically no.”
Considering all this and the predicament our health authorities and politicians have put us in, I think we must get back to normal as fast as possible without causing a “huge amount of illness” due to loss of general immunity.
Susan Fletcher, Sechelt
