We’ve all have seen the experts standing either with the president or appearing around the clock on TV. Supposedly, they’re enlightening us on the Coronavirus epidemic. I assumed most of them were epidemiologists. After all, epidemiology is the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health. It sounds like the ones to be at the forefront of the present pandemic. Worse, I blamed them for the ill-considered lockdowns. It wasn’t till I saw an Oxford-style debate on Reason.com. I realized I was wrong. I received an invitation to view ” Did the Lockdowns Save Thousands of Lives?” a Soho Forum debate featuring Physician Marty Makary vs. epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski. The subject was of great interest as the journal “Nature” recently touted studies showing the lockdowns saved millions of lives. This seemed highly unlikely, and I was eager to see the proposition debated.

I have seen Dr. Makary on several TV programs giving his views on the pandemic as an expert guest commentator. Knut Wittkowski, the epidemiologist, was a mystery to me. I assumed he would be in the affirmative. After all, weren’t we told by those in his specialty lockdowns were essential? It turns out I was completely off base. He argued the negative. It wasn’t the only thing I was wrong about. It turns out the policy of lockdowns wasn’t promoted by all epidemiologists. For instance, there are none on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. What about Dr.Fauci? He’s an immunologist. It turns out epidemiologists played little or no role in the adoption of the lockdowns. Even Dr. Makary commented in the debate, it would’ve been better if more had been in the discussion. I just never also considered there would be few epidemiologists in a dialogue about an epidemic. I failed to take my own advice about jumping to conclusions. For that, I apologize. I knew I was really on the wrong track when Knut stated he wasn’t aware of an epidemiologist advocating quarantining well people. Blanket condemnations should always be avoided.

The debate was highly informative. It seemed to me Dr. Makary never fully supported the idea of lockdowns saving thousands of lives. Knut Wittkowski made a compelling and well-prepared argument in the negative. He really impressed me when the moderator extolled his credentials, and Wittkowski said, forget them and concentrate on his facts and data. Got to love a guy with that attitude. While Reason is a libertarian magazine, the negative won over the undecideds and prevailed by better than 2 to 1 margin. I strongly recommend watching the debate yourself. There were some of the technical glitches common to today’s remote programming, but both sides come through. You can find it on the Reason website under videos or on YouTube.

While I’m making recommendations, Amazon has reinstated “Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and Lockdowns”. The short book by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson is well worth the $2.99 kindle price. While much of the material will be familiar to readers of this blog, the book well organized and easy to read. I wish I had thought of putting a book out on the subject. I’m glad he did.

Look before you leap. This idea has long been sage advice. Taking a little time to assess a situation before you take radical action can stop you from a significant mistake. A thorough exchange of ideas and information just might’ve made us hesitate before rushing off to Vietnam and the 2nd Iraq wars. Yet our modus operand lately has been just the opposite. We close down the country before we looked at what could happen from all angles. Many states never considered a more targeted approach. As I’ve pointed out, many people raised red flags about the models and data being relied on to lock down the world economy. Fear, not deliberative thought, ruled the day. Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt, Dr. Scott Atlas, and Dr. John Ioannidis were just some of the luminaries warning this was the wrong path. An army of online skeptics slicing and dicing the rationale for taking such drastic action joined in.

It’s just you never heard them at the time. Once the ruling politicians and the media hastily committed to the lockdown, they became hostile to any alternatives. The media never gave the skeptics much of a platform to inform the public of their doubts and alternatives. Deviating from the dominant solution found relentless attack. Sweden and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis were the subject of endless mockery. They were comparing Sweden unfavorably to their close smaller neighbors, Norway, and Denmark. Sweden actually falls in the middle of European outcomes with less drastic measures. The media predicted Florida would be a deathtrap for closing down late and opening up early. Early on, the hero of the hour was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The Media hailed the N.Y. governor as doing all the right things.

Act in haste, repent at leisure. The ignored skeptics are now looking prescient. Some governments are now admitting acting in haste. Norway’s prime minister Erna Solberg went on Norwegian television to make a startling admission. According to the Daily Telegraph, some, even most, of the stringent measures imposed in Norway’s lockdown now look like steps too far. “Was it necessary to close schools?” she mused. “Perhaps not.” She added, “I probably took many of the decisions out of fear” Even though Norway did well with the virus, it’s success came at too high a price. “Our assessment now that we could have achieved the same effects and avoided some of the adverse impacts by not locking down, but by instead keeping open but with infection control measures,” Camilla Stoltenberg, Norwegian Institute of Public Health Director-General.

The last few days have made me aware of a Covid-19 data point due more attention. In the past, I thought some at-risk would prefer to be with loved ones in a hazardous circumstance rather than separate from their loved ones. Aware they have a finite time left, they may choose not to spend it in isolation. So long as they didn’t endanger others, I felt this was their decision to make. Our job was to offer ways to protect the endangered to the best of our ability. My assumption was only a small number of people would turn down help to segregate from those able to infect them. Two things caused me to reassess. The Wall Street Journal reported widespread European elderly resistance to be locked down. Across the continent, seniors were demanding the right to determine not to be quarantined. They claimed the right to chose how and with whom they lived out the rest of their lives. Elder organizations cried ageism. To be sure, overall European rules tend to be more stringent than ours. Still, the numbers and senior organizations involved are illuminating.

Checking in with friends and family in the days after Mother’s Day, I was stunned to learn how many inter-generational gatherings took place. When asked why these well-seasoned citizens took such a risk, the answer was they didn’t want to miss a holiday time with their families. They were going to decide how they spent their limited time. . They surely have earned the right to make this choice. When Grammie makes clear what she desires, the family feels guilt for possibly infecting her and feeling guilty if she spends her last days alone. Obviously, in these situations, Grammie rules.

I can understand where older people are making a risky choice are. As you get closer to the end, the time has a much higher value. Looking forward to the things you love is increasingly precious. I hope to have at least a few more robust years. I’m in my early eighties with good health and no underlying conditions.

On the other hand, my wife though younger, recovered from lung cancer in the last two years. This past weekend, we were supposed to be in Dublin, Ireland embarking on a cruise to Iceland. After returning to Dublin, we planned to meet our son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter for further time in Ireland. We canceled a summer family gathering with our kids and grand-kids on the California Coast. We have to wonder, will we ever get to do these things in the future? Zoom is lovely, but it doesn’t replace hugging your grand-kids. Time is indeed different for the elderly.