Get a polling company to create a 3000-strong representative sample of your population. Then take 9,000 of your SARS-CoV-2 tests and go triple-test every one of them.
Then finally we’ll have the answer to the question of how much covid-19 virus is already out there and therefore what the actual hospitalization and mortality rates are, and we can finally decide what measures make, or do not make, sense based on some actual data.
(And as a bonus we’ll get some insight into how accurate the tests themselves are.)
For example if it turns out that SARS-CoV-2 is already present in a considerable portion of the population, such as 5 percent or more, then it follows that hospitalization and mortality rates are very low — perfectly in line with other widespread coronaviruses out there. Four of which are together responsible for around 10 percent of the yearly 300,000-600,000 influenza-like illness excess deaths, so about 30,000-60,000 yearly. Mind you, that is excess deaths we are talking about. If we attributed every death where a viral infection was present to those coronaviruses the body counts that we could conjure up could be 10 or 20 times greater.
If a test of a representative sample showed something like a 5 percent infection rate it would also mean there is no stopping this (relatively benign) virus and that lockdowns are just dragging out the pain — for no good reason since health systems are in no danger of being overwhelmed except in a few isolated locations around the world, but which is not at all unheard of in any other flu season. (Besides most likely other factors like horrific air pollution and associated chronic lung disease are in play.)
Or, if the probe would instead reveal that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is very low, and that the number of known cases (that the media keeps throwing at us) isn’t much smaller than the number of actual cases, it would mean this is a very deadly virus indeed and that many unprecedented measures are indeed justified — and we could at least continue with the certainty that we’re doing the right thing.
So why not carry out exploratory testing, and settle the matter?
If we’re going to carpet bomb our economies and livelihoods, and throw our civil liberties down the drain, wouldn’t it make sense to stop and do a simple test to confirm what we’re doing is justified? Seeing how enormously gigantic the costs are, wouldn’t it make sense to sacrifice 9,000 test kits to see if we’re on the right track?
It seems only logical that we should, so why isn’t it being done? Is it because there is a high likelihood the answer wouldn’t be the one the powers that be are now rooting for? There is a need now to justify the Draconian measures which have already been implemented, admitting miscalculation isn’t a good look for any politician. Besides, this has been an incredibly useful virus for the power elite. While they have us locked down in house arrest and terrified for our very lives, they’ve been busy distributing unprecedented trillions in virus-emergency bailouts to the well-connected with less scrutiny than ever before.
It would be a real shame if something killed the coronavirus hysteria and put an end to that.