The World Health Organizations and mainstream media would have us believe that we are facing the biggest threat to humanity in our lifetime. Predictions of wide-spread infection with high rates of mortality have convinced most governments that drastic measures are needed to save us from certain peril.
Who Is At Risk?
While there is much about this ‘novel’ coronavirus that is yet to be understood, what is clear is that not everyone is at equal risk of dying. A recent study released by Italy’s National Health authority reveals that 99% of the coronavirus fatalities in that country were in individuals already sick. According to GreenMedInfo:
“This new report challenges much of the global reporting on the topic which presents a unilateral narrative that simply being exposed (within six feet) to someone who may have tested positive for the virus is life-threatening, independent of one’s health status and other precautions one might take, such as supporting one’s immune system.” 
The most vulnerable populations appear to be those over 80 years of age and those already medically fragile with complex medical conditions.
Two Theories of Virus Management
There are two competing theories of virus management at this time:
- Herd immunity
Currently, the strategy recommended by the WHO and being employed by most countries, including Canada, is suppression. The suppression measures involve, at minimum, social distancing of the entire population, home isolation and quarantine, as well as work, school and public event closures. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal are profound and severely impact our economic, mental and social well-being.
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention at suppressing transmission will need to be maintained indefinitely as it is anticipated that transmission of the virus will quickly rebound if suppression interventions are relaxed. This strategy is counting on the eventual development of a safe and effective vaccine that can artificially stimulate a reduced coronavirus infection with resulting immunity, something that has not been possible to date.
Herd Immunity is based on the observation that most people experience no long-term effects of contracting the virus. Further, when a sufficient percentage of the population, approximately 60%, contracts and recovers from the virus the rest of the population is protected due to herd immunity.
We witnessed the protective effects of herd immunity with measles infection before the mass introduction of the measles vaccine effectively wiped out natural herd immunity and created world-wide dependency upon the vaccine. Herd immunity has the ability to protect the very young and the very old who are more susceptible to detrimental effects of an infection.
Advocates of the natural herd immunity model are of the opinion that we should focus less upon isolation and social distancing to prevent the transmission of the virus in the mass population, and instead focus on improving immune health and engaging in strategies to prevent transmission to those who are most susceptible to adverse consequences. This is the position of the Netherlands, Israel, and until recently, the UK.
Are We Over-Reacting?
Ontario’s former chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Schabas is of the opinion that “we have fundamentally over-reacted and misjudged the magnitude of the problem.” He states – “lockdown measures are unsustainable” and “the virus isn’t going anywhere”. Further, Dr. Schabas declares, “In no country, including Italy, has the death toll come anywhere close to what we would expect in an average influenza year.”(CBC News, March 22, 2020) 
In 2009-2010, the world experienced the swine flu pandemic. During that pandemic it is claimed that 203,000 people were killed world-wide by the virus. The novel coronavirus has been identified in about 6,000 people who have died to date, including 19 in Canada. There wasn’t a need to shut down our entire way of life in 2009. It is still unclear why this is the strategy being implemented today.
Should We Be Afraid?
There is certainly reason to be concerned. Our way of life has been disrupted in ways unimaginable even a few weeks ago. These measures at virus suppression have brought our economic and social lives to a halt with no clear end in sight. There is also reason to be concerned that the coronavirus narrative will be used as an excuse to impose mandatory vaccination on every citizen globally and completely eliminate the rights and freedoms we take for granted, including our right to informed consent, therapeutic choice, and bodily sovereignty.
There is also the concern that if people are afraid enough that they will not only willingly give up their rights and freedoms, they will demand all others relinquish their rights and freedoms as well. Fear has a tendency to evoke reactivity rather than thoughtful decision-making.
While we should take common sense measures to stop the spread of the virus to those who are most vulnerable, it is important to evaluate whether our efforts to prevent harm are causing even more harm. The lack of informed debate and censorship of alternative treatment options is disconcerting. It may take years to recover from the measures that we are currently instituting. And, if management of this crisis were really about health, would it not be important for our health authorities to also emphasize the importance of taking measures to build our natural immunity to contagious disease?