As an example of where the acquisition of knowledge for the replacement of belief would recently have been beneficial, I recall the earlier recognition of infection rates on cruise-ships having been limited to about 20%, and I now refer to an article by Dr. Uri Gavish, Prof. Udi Qimron, Eyal Shahar, Dr. Ifat Abadi-Korek and Michael Levit which appeared in The Daily Telegraph of 18/9/20. It began by recalling that ‘not long after the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan, the number of deaths ceased to be consistent with the exponential growthscare’; that ‘ittook the virus longer to find people to infect, which was unexpected since the virus should not have found it difficult to infect new hosts among a population of 9 million’. Thus, they recall that ‘this non-exponential growth was the first clue that pre-existing immunity to Sars-CoV-2 may be ubiquitous’; that ‘the pandemic never behaved as if the virus was foreign to most people’; and that ‘China registered under 5000 deaths and South Korea 300’.
Thus, we see that ‘the obvious explanation for these negligible mortality rates – pre-existing immunity – was widely ignored’; that ‘the world chose to believe that lockdown somehow eradicated the virus’; that ‘the miracle in South Korea was (mistakenly) explained by test and trace which for the first time in history, arrested the spread of a respiratory, often asymptomatic, infection’; that ‘Japan would later see about 1,500 deaths with no lockdown, nor much testing’; that ‘that was (mistakenly) explained by discipline, face masks, or bowing, instead of shaking hands’. The authors then stated that ‘by April, PCR tests for Covid-19 in small confined populations, such as on ships often did not exceed 20%’; that ‘similarly, an antibody survey in Gangelt, Germany, found only 14% infection’; that ‘again, pre-existing immunity was the likely explanation; that ‘levels of pre-existing immunity aren’t expected to be identical everywhere’; that ‘a rate above 20% was found in small groups, mostly living in atypical environments (jails, aircraft carriers)’; and that ‘nonetheless no single antibody survey exceeded 20%’.
The cited article also noted that ‘a high percentage of past infection was reported in several large populations’; that ‘these findings paradoxically point to a high level of pre-existing immunity’; that ‘our immune system fights infection mainly with antibodies and white blood cells, T-cells, but these act only on targets they recognise’; that ‘as early as April, studies found 30 to 80 % of people who never had Covid-19 had T-cells able to recognise certain parts of Sars-CoV-2, causes of the common cold’; that these T-cells – caused by the common cold – cross-reacted with the features they share with Sars-CoV-2’; that ‘normally pre-existing immunity would prevent the virus from replicating in the body so PCR and antibody tests would show negative’; but that ‘in a weakened body, infection might gain ground before elimination, resulting in positive PCR and antibody tests’; that the risk of dieing from an infection – the infection fatality ratio (IFR) – is the number of deaths divided by the number infected’; and that ‘this would not normally change even if a large part of the population is immune’; but that ‘when a susceptible population is weakened by poor living conditions and exposed to the virus, more people will die and the IFR will increase; that if a largely pre-immune population is weakened and infection spreads, the IFR will decrease, the more susceptible will indeed die, but many more among the pre-immune part of that population are weakened enough to show up as positive in the anti-body test, so the death-to-infection ratio becomes significantly smaller’.
The cited article then brings us to the recent exceptions to the 20% maximal infection rate. To this end it notes that ‘surveys in India, Brazil and Peru detected 25 to 71% in all of which the IFR turned out to be low’; and that ‘in every case to date where the infection rate passed 20%, the IFR was much lower than expected’; that ‘while one cannot claim that voluntary social distancing saved the day as the virus did spread widely in these countries: we can say that if immune systems can recognise Sars-CoV-2, it makes no sense for any government to treat the virus (Covid-19) as a new infection’; that ‘rational administrations should urgently invest in surveys of cross-immunity and other types of cellular immunity, which cost next to nothing compared with what is spent on PCR testing, contact-tracing and lockdowns’; that ‘in short, most of us are at least partially immune to Covid-19’; and that ‘we should now accept this and try to quantify it’.
Thus, the observations cited above tempt me to conclude that we now have an explanation as to why no previous infection has ever killed all of the populations exposed to it; that the cross-recognition identified above is the mechanism by which the human race and other species have continued to exist for as long as they have; and that had pre-existing cross-immunity coupled with the low death rates and their age-distribution been recognised in this specific case, self-isolation might have been restricted to the retired, and economically damaging general lockdowns might never have arisen. 19/9/20.