What do you think about Thomas Friedman's idea to at least talk about the Swedish approach?

[Ms. Toad]

39. You keep peddling this idea of creating herd immunity

in a variety of ways.

The most significant issue is that there is no evidence yet that it is possible to become immune to a second (third, fourth, etc.) infection. So pursuing a policy that is based on our ability to become immune is a fool's errand. Before we risk the death and permanent injury necessary to create that immunity, we need to know that the goal is real.

Second, you have suggested in the past that the young and healthy should actively seek this disease. That is based on two flawed premises: First that there are populations that are not vulnerable. To the extent that it may have been true in outbreaks in other countries - it is far less true here. Increasingly, we have previously healthy dead children. We have more previously healthy dead individuals through age 40 (in your presumed safe groups who should seek infection). Second, that this is an innocuous disease in the mythical invulnerable population. This disease leaves many (in all populations) with permanent damage to their lungs and other organs. It is not innocuous even in the populations presumed to be least likely to be infected. Your suggestion is like telling people to seek out polio to get it over for the purpose of creating a mythical (see the first point) herd immunity - even those who lived were left with lifelong permanent injuries.

Third, the premise that we can protect vulnerable populations assumes that there is no crossover between the vulnerable v. mythical invulnerable populations. We live and work in extended populations. You see that in nursing homes now. Someone has to take care of the vulnerable populations. Due to economic conditions, not only do these caregivers interact with the "outside world" - they often work in two (or more) nursing homes. So whatever they take to one vulnerable population (or encounter in one vulnerable population) - they take to another. Increasing the viral exposure in the "outside world" dramatically increase the possibility of exposure to those who are vulnerable - their caregivers are directly exposed to all of those presumed invulnerable people you are encouraging to get the disease now. Even if those caregivers are taking precautions to avoid exposure, their children and spouses are not necessarily taking those precautions. When they go shopping for their essential needs they are exposed to people not taking precautions. There is simply no way to separate vulnerable populations from a mythical invulnerable population.

Fourth, the exponential nature of this illnesses' contagious capabilities has not changed. We started to shut things down in Ohio on March 3, when there was a single infected person - to prevent it doubling (in Ohio) roughly every three days from 1, to 2, to 4, to 8, and so on. By now, 68 days later - doubling every 3 days, had we not taken precautions there would be roughly 3.3 million cases. There are currently 23, 697 cases - because we successfully slowed down the transmission. (Our hospitals are able to handle 23, 697 cases spread over 68 days; they would have been unable to handle 3.3 million cases spread over 68 days).

What the Swedish model suggests is going back to doubling every 3 days - let nature take its course (depending on individuals - including gun toting terrorists, airlines who still pack their airplanes, etc.) to take the precautions necessary to avoid overwhelming hospitals. Because there are currently (in Ohio) 23,697 cases., we're starting somewhere between day 39 and day 42 (without taking any precautions). So all we would have done by more than a month of pain and economic devastation will be for naught, since we are right back on the path to overwhelming our hospitals - and we're starting not from 1 person on day 1, but we're back between day 39 and 42 with 23,697 cases to start already under our belt, doubling every 3 days.

All the evidence staring us in the face is that individual in the United States are not responsible enough to protect each other without restrictive orders. Most governors - even in Ohio where the initial leadership was exemplary - are not following even the very aggressive WH guidelines. We're about to head into phase II, without having even met the guidelines to start Phase I. They are doing this in an attempt to balance safety v. the violent reaction to being ordered to behave responsibly - and it is going to be an unmitigated disaster. When we recognize it, it will be after several more doublings have occurred, and it will be too late to roll back the clock. It is far harder to roll back clock when 12 days of trusting citizens to do the right thing means 15 additional cases than when it means 245,760 additional cases. I hope it will not be that bad - that there are enough to people being responsible that it will be that bad - but my shopping trip yesterday leaves me with very little confidence.

Moving to a Sweden-like plan will result in even more people than now behaving irresponsibly - since those people who are restrained only because there is a public health orders will feel free to join their more radical counterparts who are currently violating orders.

As someone else said - I'm quite happy letting the right wing own this idea. There are too many of them in the US (who will behave irresponsibly) to make leaving it up to us to behave responsibly a choice that we can survive.