protest covid-19 usa
We have watched, with surprise and dismay, as mandates and policies designed to contain the spread of COVID-19 increasingly depart from the actual data and science. As a result, those most vulnerable to the disease continue to die, while the least vulnerable continue to suffer the mental, emotional and financial impacts of the lockdown.

We support the Great Barrington Declaration and its strategy of focused protection of the vulnerable and freedom to choose individual levels of protection for others. The declaration has been signed by leading epidemiologists, scientists and medical professionals. This internationally endorsed, nonpartisan, scientifically based strategy of how to respond to the pandemic and its subsequent policy responses is based on the most current COVID-19 data.

The declaration's description of the focused protection strategy states: "Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal" while "adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses." An informed individual and the freedom to choose is at the heart of our response.

Our support for this recommendation is twofold. Focused protection offers a path forward informed by data and science that reduces the direct effects of COVID-19 on mortality, and avoids as much as possible the damaging physical and mental health impacts of current policies.

The science of epidemics shows that as immunity levels build among individuals in the population, the risk of infection for all decreases. Eventually, the risk will fall to a small and stable value when herd immunity is reached. The focused protection strategy allows those who are at minimal risk of death to build up the necessary herd immunity, while focusing protection on those who are at highest risk. The result is reduced overall mortality and hospitalizations.

Sadly, the fear produced by misreporting of the data and the way we count "cases" and "deaths" is problematic, while the actual risk of death from COVID-19 is much lower than first thought. A critical feature of the virus is that the greatest risk of death is in the elderly with associated comorbidities, that is, the presence of other chronic diseases or conditions. For this population, the risk of death is 5.4% according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those with no comorbidities have a negligible risk of death. The risk for people over 70 is well over 1,000 times as great as for those under age 70. Thus, it is clear that those over age 70 require focused protection.

For most people below the age of 70, the risks for COVID-19 are very similar to that of the flu. In the very young, there is negligible risk. According to CDC reports, those under age 17 are over 200 times more likely to die of a cause other than COVID-19. Thus, groups contracting the infection to build immunity face little risk. In fact, we also know most will not have serious symptoms and few will require hospitalization.

Fear, stress and isolation are leading to serious mental health issues, including increases in suicide and depression. The current focus on a single virus, coupled with the inefficient application of resources to those not at risk, adversely impacts overall health care.

Further, elevated levels of fear not commensurate with actual risk are discouraging people from seeking other health care. We are seeing lower vaccination rates, fewer cancer screenings and worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes. The mental and physical health effects of policies surrounding COVID-19 will lead to excess mortality for years to come, exceeding that of the virus itself. Again, focused protection offers better long-term outcomes for our population.

In addition, the economic consequences of current COVID-19 policies also have health implications. For example, in many places these policies have led to a growing hunger crisis, likely to produce deaths and health problems far in excess of those from COVID-19. For those disadvantaged economically, the results are even worse. Fear and misguided responses are leading to unintended negative consequences in the application of health care or the lack thereof.

We note that the focused protection plan does include sheltering the vulnerable. We must also consider non-COVID-19 health ramifications for this group. By focusing resources, the goal is to apply protection in creative and humane ways. We must allow those in at-risk groups to individually decide what restrictions to take based on their comorbidities. Instances of non-COVID-19 death among those with dementia, or the elderly being isolated and left to die alone, must be avoided even as we protect them from the virus until herd immunity is reached.

We believe it is absolutely critical that leaders adopt a focused approach quickly. Living in fear and isolation is leading to widespread suffering. We propose following the data and science, and returning to living in freedom. It is time to act wisely, not rashly.
Rodney X. Sturdivant is a statistics professor and the director of the statistical consulting center at Baylor University.

Andrew G. Glen is a professor emeritus of statistics at the U.S. Military Academy.

Mark Arvidson is a mathematics professor at Azusa Pacific University.