The TSAP's Current Position On Vaccines For COVID-19

Until recently, the TSAP has taken no official position on vaccines.  We have generally supported the concept as a rule.  We are NOT an anti-vaccine group by any stretch of the imagination, and still not.

But when it comes to a hastily-made COVID-19 vaccine, one that may very well be made mandatory at some point for practically everyone, we must note that there are new nuances to consider now.  We know that hastily-made vaccines in general carry unacceptable risk, with the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle being the most infamous example.  Rushing vaccines to market before they are proven safe and effective is inherently unethical and foolish.  Worse still, making such vaccines mandatory, especially when the virus is clearly already on the run and circling the drain as we speak (as natural herd immunity is right around the corner if not already present) is a massive and unnecessary government overreach where the ends do NOT justify the means.

Even if the virus was still completely out of control for the foreseeable future, we have already noted that better treatment of patients while allowing herd immunity to develop naturally would be far more effective and timely than any vaccine, if we ever even get a vaccine that works at all, that is.

Make no mistake, we do NOT oppose the development and marketing of safe and effective vaccines with no funny business.  But anything beyond that is a no-go for us, plain and simple.

We absolutely oppose any attempt to create "immunity passports" or "vaccine passports" of any kind as well.  That is just far too Orwellian and potentially nefarious for us, especially for a disease whose actual infection fatality rate turns out to be in the same ballpark as seasonal flu.  And those who then reply "well, maybe we should make flu shots mandatory for everyone too!" are ironically SOOOO close to actually getting the point.  There is, after all, a reason we as a society have chosen not to do so--yet.

And while we support Universal Basic Income (UBI), we do NOT support Australia's plan to cynically use such a thing as a cudgel to economically coerce people to receive such hastily-made vaccines (i.e. no vaccine = no job and no UBI).  Not only is that highly unethical, but it is also a gross perversion of the very concept of UBI, which is supposed to be unconditional with no strings attached by definition.  And this is in a country that has just recently brought back even more draconian lockdowns to a good chunk of the country, despite very little problem with the virus.  It's almost like Australia was never really able to completely shake its history as a penal colony.

And finally, quite frankly, the whole idea of us all having to somehow put up with this inane and insane New Abnormal indefinitely until the vaccine (which may never work or never arrive) is widely available, is itself a form of social and economic coercion.  We believe that making civil rights, normal economic activity, and normal social interactions somehow contingent on nearly everyone receiving a vaccine is an unprecedented and unacceptable act of coercion.  Fortunately, at least some pundits are gradually walking back that idea, but it remains to be seen whether enough government officials will as well.

By the way, have you seen the ever-insightful author Ellen Brown's latest articles on the topic?  She is clearly one of US, basically.  And we are indeed honored to have someone like her on essentially the very same wavelength as the TSAP in that regard.

UPDATE:   For anyone who brings up the landmark Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) in arguing that mandatory COVID vaccinations are in line with the Constitution, please recall that that case was regarding local vaccination mandates determined by local boards of health for smallpox, which was a far deadlier disease with an infection fatality rate of about 20-30%, about 100 times deadlier than COVID (about 0.2-0.3%).  And note that the penalty for not getting vaccinated under the law in question was a mere $5, or about $150 in today's money.  Proportionality is important here.

Dear Donald, Stop Sabotaging The US Postal Service!

Dear Donald J. Trump,

We know you are deliberately sabotaging the United States Postal Service, which until just a week or two ago has been the wonder of the world, in order to sabotage mail-in voting and thus desperately attempt to rig the election in your favor since you know you will lose otherwise.  BIGLY.  Sad.  It is so transparent what you are trying to do, and the delays and errors caused by wilfully and unnecessarily tampering with our mail system are more than a mere inconvenience.  People's lives literally depend on the USPS functioning properly even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic.  In fact, such deliberate tampering with the mail system is literally a FEDERAL FELONY OFFENSE, as if you really needed to make your miles-long rap sheet even longer.  Seriously.

Thus, we at the TSAP hereby demand that you do all of the following yesterday:

1. Reverse the cynical "Friday Night Massacre" firings of the top brass at the USPS, and replace the current Postmaster General with a non-crony non-campaign donor.
2. Restore full funding to the USPS.  If your GOP refuses or drags their feet, use your executive pen to do so in the meantime.
3. Do us all a YUUUGE favor and RESIGN. 
4. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sincerely,

We the People of the United States of America

The TSAP's Updated Position On Face Mask Mandates

DISCLAIMER:  The TSAP still encourages everyone to continue observing official mask mandates in public places at the national, state, and/or local level, for as long as those mandates are still in effect, and does NOT promote or condone any civil disobedience in that regard.  Choose your battles very wisely, and don't be a Karen or Kevin either way (with apologies to people who actually have those given names.)

NOTE:  The following shall fully supersede any positions taken or advice given prior to August 1, 2020, and shall remain in effect until further notice.

As we now finally enter the endgame of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, and face mask mandates are now entering in their third, fourth, or even fifth month in many places, we at the TSAP feel it is time to start talking about how long these mandates shall last, and to what extent, before they are ultimately phased out.   Yes, you read that right.  There, we finally said the heresy out loud now, and we don't regret it.

While the TSAP has enthusiastically supported fairly broad mask mandates from late April onwards, that support was predicated on these policies being temporary, logical, and nuanced.  We have never supported permanent mask mandates (or ones that last until that ever-elusive vaccine), nor have we supported ones that apply to any places that are both not open to the public and and not workplaces (such as private residences and exclusive members-only clubs).  Nor have we supported any outdoor mask mandates that last for more than two weeks, unless an exception is made for situations where six feet of distance is possible to maintain between people.  And we have opposed all mask mandates that apply to children under two years of age, and have not (yet) taken a position on whether children between the ages of two and ten years of age should be required to wear masks in public either.  And penalties for individuals, if any, should not exceed a small civil fine similar to a parking or traffic ticket, with no criminal record.  After all, for most people, not wearing a mask is no more dangerous to others than speeding is.

We have generally considered New York State's mask mandate, and later California's, to be a good model for the nation.  In contrast, the local ones in Miami and Broward County, Florida, are too broad and harsh by our standards.  But even the very best of such mandates should still ultimately have a sunset clause.

Our current position is the same as before, with the following changes:

1. All broad mask mandates should sunset no later than January 1, 2021 at the latest, or six months after they began, whichever occurs first.  Even in areas currently designated as "red" zones (i.e. characterized by seriously widespread community transmission of the virus).
2. In areas that are currently designated as "yellow" or "green" zones, all broad mask mandates should sunset no later than November 4, 2020 (i.e. the day after Election Day).
3. Narrow mask mandates, covering only very selected situations such as inside retail shops and/or public transit, can last beyond the end of broad mask mandates, but after November 4, 2020 shall sunset no more than an additional 90 days later in any case.
4. Until the November 2020 election is over, masks should remain mandatory at all election locations and on all public transit, even if masks are no longer required elsewhere.
5. Going forward, all new broad mask mandates imposed after August 15, 2020 should only be imposed on areas with seriously widespread community transmission of the virus.  Otherwise, no new mask mandates.

Of course, in the event of a severe second wave in the winter, these mandates may very well need to be reimposed, and nothing written here shall preclude that, but the TSAP doubts very much that will happen, since "herd immunity" is likely to be reached nationwide by then if it hasn't already.  Yes, really.

As for children under the age of ten, the TSAP now believes that after August 15, 2020 they should be completely exempt from any mask mandates, with the possible exception of public transit and within 100 feet of a polling place, in which case only children under the age of two should be exempt.

Furthermore, deaf people and those communicating with them, and anyone for whom wearing a mask is medically contraindicated, should also be automatically exempt from such mandates.

Face masks do work to an extent in slowing (not stopping) the spread of the virus when used properly, though their effectiveness has likely been overstated and they should not be regarded as a talisman or a substitute for social distancing and hygiene, but as an additional modest layer of protection when they are widely used by the vast majority of people.  They protect those around the wearer more so than they do the wearer.  The "effect size" of universal mask wearing is relatively high when there is a high level of widespread community spread of the virus (i.e "red" zones), while it becomes practically negligible when the level of community transmission is at a very low baseline level (i.e. "green" zones).  And outdoor transmission is relatively rare with or without masks, while at least 99% of transmission occurs indoors.  Thus, the TSAP's nuanced position makes sense now.

Interestingly, none of the Nordic countries (including Sweden) ever saw the need to mandate the use of face masks, nor did the Netherlands, and yet they did not do any worse overall in terms of the the pandemic compared with other European countries that did (often belatedly) require them.  On the other hand, all of the East Asian success stories did involve widespread mask wearing, though not every country required it and often it was voluntary.  So unlike lockdowns, which turned out to be unequivocally counterproductive and thus worse than useless, the jury is basically still out on the effectiveness of mask mandates when looking at the international evidence.

(The debate on masks, after all, is well over a century old.  Really nothing new under the sun here.)

Make no mistake, mask mandates are NOT lockdowns, and are nowhere near as bad.  After all, the TSAP supported them as a way OUT of lockdown.  But they do come with their own downsides too, and as the weeks turn into months and the months turn into years, they don't exactly age very well either.

UPDATE:  It looks like there is yet another nuance to the centuries-old debate about the effectiveness of masks.  That is, the latest theory is that even though masks (especially cloth masks) are only partially effective as PPE and source control, they do likely reduce the viral load, which while it can still be somewhat infectious it would would make the wearer and those around them less sick and less likely to die than receiving a higher dose of the virus.  A lower dose of the virus is easier for the immune system to knock out quickly before it gets bad, while still enabling the infected to build some immunity going forward.  After all, "the dose makes the poison", and indeed the etymology of the word virus comes from and old word for "poison".  Another way to potentially reduce viral load is to gargle with an alcohol-based mouthwash regularly.   That said, these nuances do not materially change the TSAP's position, and in fact reinforces our middle-of-the-road approach.

Of course, to avoid further concentrating one's own potential viral load, be sure to change or clean your mask very regularly, and don't wear it 24/7 with no breaks.  Fresh air is also a good thing too, after all.  That is, use common sense!

And this begs the question once more to the lockdown enthusiasts who at first opposed masks but later embraced them:  if masks are so effective, why did we even lockdown at all?  Seriously, why did we?

OCTOBER UPDATE:  A cursory review of the empirical evidence so far reveals that while masks may very well be marginally effective at the micro level, they apparently are practically insignificant at the macro level, at least in the long run.  To wit, as the charts here so clearly show, broad mask mandates do not appear to have had any noticeable impact on the course of a country, state, or locality's epidemic curve.  To name a few, Hawaii, Illinois, LA, Miami, Kansas, Wisconsin, Israel, Japan, Spain, Argentina, and most notoriously Peru all have seen no beneficial long-run impact on cases (which actually increased at some point after implementation, even in conjunction with strict lockdowns in some cases), and the same was ultimately true for deaths and hospitalizations as well, except for Hawaii, Israel, and Japan whose death rates remain unusually low for reasons not yet fully understood.  As for Czechia, the crown jewel of early mask mandates, it appears to have only worked the first time in conjunction with their early suppression strategy in the spring, but not the second time around when the virus came roaring back in the fall.  Meanwhile, mandate-free Sweden, Denmark, Norway, North and South Dakota, Georgia, and the parts of Florida without local mandates don't seem to have had worse trends overall.  Thus, the TSAP no longer officially supports broad mask mandates as of October, except perhaps for a limited time (two to three weeks) in locally-defined "red zones". 

And we certainly do NOT support any federal mask mandates in the USA at all, period.  They are not only constitutionally dubious at best, but as noted above there is simply not nearly enough evidence in their favor to justify such unprecedented federal government overreach even temporarily.  Fortunately, even Joe Biden himself has largely walked back his initially strong support for such federal mandates.

NOVEMBER UPDATE:  On November 18, 2020, the much awaited Danish mask RCT study was finally released and published three months late in the Annals of Internal Medicine.  And the results were, shall we say, rather underwhelming, and not statistically significant (i.e. not statistically different from null).  Not necessarily the final word, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of general mask use in the community at the macro level.

A recent Cochrane review of the literature is not exactly reassuring either, to put it mildly.

But what about source control, you say?  That is, protection of people around the wearer, which most studies were not designed to look at?  Again, a cursory look at the data in the weeks and months following the implementation of mask mandates don't really support that either, at least not at a general population level.  Thus any such community benefit is likely either very small, very transient, or both.

Thus, we can conclude that even if there is some overarching benefit to wearing masks in some situations, universal community masking (or lack thereof) is nowhere near the game-changer it was originally sold as.  If it were, the pandemic would have been effectively over in a given locality, state, or country (even as it raged elsewhere) within two or three weeks following the implementation of a broad mask mandate.  And that has not happened anywhere in the world, even in places with very high (90%+) compliance, and even when combined with a ban on indoor restaurant dining (a behavior which might vitiate the results).  And as of November, the TSAP believes going forward that mask wearing (outside of a healthcare setting) should be largely (if not entirely) voluntary, and that businesses of any kind should be free to decide whether or not to require employees and/or customers to wear them.

Our best advice?  "Use masks judiciously, NOT superstitiously", pretty much sums it up.

What If The Cure For COVID-19 Already Existed For Decades?

DISCLAIMER:  The following article references third-party sources and is intended for general information only, and is NOT intended to provide medical advice or otherwise diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, including (but not limited to) COVID-19.  Consult a qualified physician before beginning any sort of treatment or prophylactic regimen and/or if you know or suspect that you currently have COVID-19.  Anyone who takes or does anything mentioned (or alluded to) in this or any other TSAP article does so entirely at their own risk and liability.  The TSAP thus makes absolutely no warranties, express or implied, and is not liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages resulting from any act or omission on the part of the reader(s) or others.  Caveat lector.

For a more succinct and updated version of this article, please see Part 2 here.

What if the cure for COVID-19 already existed, not just recently, but for decades?  What if the death toll past, present, and future could be or have been reduced to a mere tiny fraction of what it is and is predicted to be without it?  What if it was such a game-changer that it would make vaccines and expensive new drugs obsolete, to say nothing of returning very quickly, seamlessly, and fearlessly to the "old normal" that we all miss so much now (that is, if we would have ever even departed from it at all)?  And what if it consisted entirely of relatively safe and cheap generics and nutritional supplements all along?

Sounds too good to be true, right?  Well, apparently it is true after all, despite all the best efforts of hyper-partisan lockdown enthusiasts, Big Pharma, and their government enablers to suppress and sabotage it.  More and more doctors and scientists all over the world are learning about it every day, in fact.

First, let's define the term "cure" for the purposes of this article.  We do not mean a "silver bullet" type of treatment in the same way that antibiotics singlehandedly cure bacterial infections, since this type of virus, like the common cold and flu, is really defeated by our bodies' own immune systems.  Usually that does the job just fine, but clearly not always.  Sometimes it needs a little help from outside.  Thus, we define a "cure" as any treatment protocol that reduces the death rate and/or hospitalization rate dramatically (by at least 50%) compared to no such treatment, and can thus be considered a game-changer.  Anything that can save that many lives and/or free up that many hospital resources would indeed be a game-changer by definition.

There is in fact already such a certain alternative treatment protocol that has gotten such a bad rap in the mainstream due to grossly improper use (and its infamous guilt by association with certain politicians who promoted it) that some countries and states have even banned it (or at least a key component of it) despite its rather promising effectiveness in saving lives when used early, properly, and under the advice of a qualified physician.  For example, Switzerland briefly banned it and subsequently lifted the ban, effectively creating a natural experiment, and the results speak for themselves in terms of death rates (which rose fourfold during the ban and then dropped back to what they were before the ban when it was lifted).  And the Brazilian state of Para saw death rates plummet after introducing it, while India's rather low per capita death rate (despite their epidemic being out of control for months) can also perhaps be explained by such treatment.

In fact, it seems to be one of the strongest factors in predicting a country's (or region's) per capita death rate, especially after adjusting for the average age of the population.  Meanwhile, the presence or relative stringency of lockdowns generally shows no clear correlation and in fact, within Europe and within the USA, a rather perverse correlation with death rates.

So what is this treatment protocol?  There are several variants, but the one that seems to be the best of all is the one developed and further refined by a group of Swiss doctors, and is as follows in their words:

Treatment protocol

1. Zinc (50mg to 100mg per day)º
2. Hydr*xychl*roqu*ne (400mg per day)*
3. Quercetin (500mg to 1000mg per day)º
4. Bromhexine (50mg to 100mg per day)º
5. Azithromycin (up to 500mg per day)*
6. Heparin (usual dosage)*

*) Prescription only (in most countries)
º) Also prophylactically (for high-risk persons) 

Note: Quercetin may be used in addition to or as a replacement of hydr*xychl*roqu*ne (HCQ). Contraindications for HCQ (e.g. favism or heart disease) and azithromycin must be observed. Treatment duration is five to seven days. Prophylactic treatment requires lower doses.

Their original protocol prior to August 5, 2020 did not include Bromhexine, but that was added due to recently mounting evidence that it is at least as much of a game-changer as HCQ if not more so.  While it is typically used as a mucolytic expectorant for coughs and chest congestion, apparently it can also incidentally prevent the virus from getting into our cells in the first place, thus rendering the virus impotent in the face of treatment.  While Bromhexine is available over the counter (OTC) in most countries worldwide including the UK, EU, Australia, Mexico, and much of Asia, it is unfortunately still not available yet in the USA as the FDA has yet to approve it, so Americans would likely have to stick to the original five-component version for the time being unless they are currently abroad.  That is probably why most Americans have probably never even heard of it.

So how does the whole thing work?  This synergistic cocktail does the following, in their own words, with linked citations:

Mechanisms of action 

Zinc inhibits RNA polymerase activity of coronaviruses and thus blocks virus replication. Hydr*xychl*roqu*ne and quercetin support the cellular absorption of zinc and have additional anti-viral properties. Bromhexine inhibits the expression of the cellular TMPRSS2 protease and thus the entry of the virus into the cell. Azithromycin prevents bacterial superinfections. Heparin prevents infection-related thromboses and embolisms in patients at risk. (See scientific references below). 

See also: Illustration of the mechanisms of action of HCQ, quercetin and bromhexine

The Swiss doctors do note that early treatment is best, ideally before hospitalization, as is prophylactic use for high-risk and high-exposure persons.  The sooner, the better.  If taken too late, such as when already in critical condition, its usefulness is quite limited.  But even if already hospitalized, better late than never.

So exactly how successful are we talking here?  Again, in their own words:

Treatment successes 

Zinc/HCQ/AZ: US physicians reported an 84% decrease in hospitalization rates, a 50% decrease in mortality rates among already hospitalized patients (if treated early), and an improvement in the condition of patients within 8 to 12 hours. Italian doctors reported a decrease in deaths of 66%. 

Bromhexine: Iranian doctors reported in a study with 78 patients a decrease in intensive care treatments of 82%, a decrease in intubations of 89%, and a decrease in deaths of 100%. Chinese doctors reported a 50% reduction in intubations.

Pretty impressive, right?  Let those numbers sink in for a moment.  Talk about a game-changer!

And if one still needs to be hospitalized, they go on to recommend that ventilators be avoided as much as possible as they tend to be counterproductive, and opt instead for the far less-invasive high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to deliver live oxygen therapy.

(Courtesy of Swiss Policy Research.  Worth reading in full from the original source.)

A word of caution about HCQ:  While it seems to work very well when used early, properly, and under the advice of a qualified physician, that does NOT mean that anyone should just take it willy-nilly.  Ditto for azithromycin or any other antibiotic.  These powerful drugs can have serious side effects when taken improperly, excessively, or when medically contraindicated, which is why they are still prescription-only in most (but not all) countries even after decades of being on the market.  Don't hoard them either, since plenty of non-COVID patients also depend on these medications as well.  Don't take (H)CQ with any drug that prolongs the QT interval either. And unless you really, really want to win a Darwin Award, do NOT ingest any fish tank cleaner just because it happens to be related and has a similar name!  When in doubt, stick with Quercetin and zinc, with of course plenty of vitamin C and D as well to further boost the immune system and synergize with the former.

(Quercetin, a naturally occurring plant bioflavonoid found in various foods, is readily available as a nutritional supplement in numerous stores nationwide and worldwide.  The TSAP likes to affectionately call it "Vitamin Q". And no one would dare to ban that, of course, since doing so would just give the game away at this point.  They'd rather simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.)

And of course, for any critical cases, we know now (through clinical trial and error) that there are always corticosteroids to fall back on as well, particularly dexamethasone, and possibly inhaled ones like budesonide as well.  Their effectiveness in saving lives is apparently good but limited.  Given that they inherently suppress the immune system, they should NOT be given early, only for cases that are bad enough that respiratory support is needed.  That is, steroids are used to quell the dreaded "cytokine storm" of severe inflammation that occurs when the body basically nukes itself in a desperate (and counterproductive) attempt to rid it of the virus.  The fact that it took months to figure that out really speaks volumes.  And it is practically the only thing that both pro-HCQ and anti-HCQ studies seem to agree upon.

(The jury is still out on whether early budesonide use specifically has any additional benefits.)

Also, please note that the TSAP is NOT a Trump-supporting party, in fact we despise him and want him to lose the 2020 election.  But as we know, sometimes a stopped clock can be right twice a day in regards to HCQ, albeit with the truth being a bit more nuanced.  And he could partially and belatedly atone for some of his misdeeds with the simple stroke of his executive pen, namely by passing an emergency use (if not permanent) authorization for the importation, manufacture, and use of Bromhexine.  If countries as strict as the UK and Australia can approve it long ago for OTC use, surely we can do the same over here.  And also, make low-dose HCQ OTC (or at least behind the counter) as well, like several countries already do, perhaps subject to rationing.

(And, of course, Trump can also use the Defense Production Act to force the production and distribution of PPE to hospitals, albeit belatedly, so nurses don't have to keep reusing PPE.  And then he can go do us all a YUUUGE favor and RESIGN.)

In fact, we will go out on a limb and make the following extremely audacious claim:  Had the United States government (as well as other countries) decided instead to avoid lockdowns and shutdowns entirely, let the virus run its course, and simply made all of the aforementioned drugs in this article readily available for free or cheap from the start to all those who needed them, especially for high-risk and high-exposure groups, while also recommending and providing the general population with vitamins C and D, Quercetin, and zinc, we would very likely have saved a LOT more lives at a tiny fraction of the cost.  And of course, no collateral damage either.  But that would have made far too much sense, of course.

Thus, the cure has apparently been right under our noses all along.  It is long past time to stop playing politics and put it to good use, ending this nightmare once and for all.  So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  As of August 25, 2020, and again in September, the Swiss doctors have since updated their treatment protocol with some new nuances added, and clearer distinctions between treatment and prophylaxis.  They also add Vitamins C and D as well to both treatment and prophylaxis.  As an aside, they also now add that ivermectin and favipiravir may also be rather promising treatments as well (though note how they do NOT mention Gilead's overpriced blockbuster drug remdesivir, which quite honestly is at best just another Tamiflu but with more side effects). The basic idea here is the same though.  To wit, in their own words below:

Treatment protocol

Prophylaxis

1. Zinc (50mg to 100mg per day)
2. Quercetin (500mg to 1000mg per day)
3. Bromhexine (25mg to 50mg per day)
4. Vitamins C (1000mg) and D (2000 u/d)

Early treatment

1. Zinc (75mg to 150mg per day)
2. Quercetin (500mg to 1500mg per day)
3. Bromhexine (50mg to 75mg per day)
4. Vitamins C (1000mg) and D (4000 u/d)

Ancillary (prescription only)

1. Hydr*xychlor*qu*ne (400mg per day)
2. High-dose vitamin D (1x 100,000 IU)
3. Azithromycin (up to 500mg per day)
4. Heparin (usual dosage)

Note: Contraindications for HCQ (e.g. favism or heart disease) must be observed. 

Addendum: Other prescription drugs with first reported successes in the early medical treatment of Covid-19 are ivermectin (read more) and favipiravir (read more).

And there you have it.  Note that while HCQ and azithromycin have been demoted to merely "ancillary", that is probably because of the addition of Bromhexine, which again is unfortunately still not available in the USA at all except in small clinical trials.  (WTF are they waiting for?)  So to any Americans reading this, if your doctor says that you need HCQ and/or azithromycin, then you probably really do, and should thus take it without delay.

There is also another treatment and prophylaxis protocol by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai involving Vitamin A and iodine/iodide as well as Vitamins C and D to build up one's immune system worth considering as well.  Please do be careful with Vitamin A though, since unlike with C and D, it is fairly easy to overdose on.  Ditto for Lugol's iodine solution as well.

NEW UPDATE: As of September 9, 2020, there is a new hypothesis, the bradykinin hypothesis, which posits that the main way that COVID-19 kills is via a bradykinin storm rather than a purely cytokine storm, though the two storms are likely intertwined.  If that's the case, then there are various additional existing drugs that target the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), and it also further strengthens the case for Vitamin D as a treatment and prophylaxis, for which evidence continues to mount as we speak.

In fact, the Swiss doctors just recently added a very high-dose bolus of Vitamin D to the ancillary category of their protocol, based on the very promising results of a recent randomized clinical trial in Spain.

Nutrition in general seems to play a key role in who survives COVID and who doesn't.  And not just Vitamin C and D--there several other important nutrients worth considering as well.  For example, glutathione, and the supplement N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which is a key precursor to glutathione, also seems to have rather promising effects as well.  NAC is also a good liver detox and hangover cure as well, which is probably what it is most famous for.  Selenium, and also EGCG from green tea, look rather promising as well.  And, of course, as noted earlier in this article, whatever you do, don't forget the zinc!

Stay healthy everyone,

The True Spirit of America Party

A Better Way To Solve The Mother Of All Fiscal Cliffs

With the extra $600 per week in unemployment benefits set to expire today, combined with the income tax deadline that just recently passed (July 15), the country faces the mother of all fiscal cliffs.  As a result, the money supply would shrink in August, and millions of Americans would have less money to spend right while the eviction moratorium expires and several months of their rent effectively becomes due all at once.  And the timing could not be worse, given the fact that the GDP apparently shrank by nearly a third (32.9%) in the second quarter of this year, the worst quarter in American history (and even worse than the European average now!), while any hope of recovery is currently sputtering now at best.

That is, the US economy literally shrank by a greater annualized percentage in just three months than in the entire four years (peak to trough) from 1929-1932, the worst of the Great Depression, when GDP shrank by 30.5%.  Let that sink in.  Meanwhile, the UK is currently experiencing their worst recession in at least 300 years.  Now that really says something!

Thus, a very, very big stimulus is necessary right now to prevent a long-term, full-blown depression of epic proportions.  Depressions are fundamentally caused by a shortage of money.  After all, GDP is literally just a spending measure, and most of that is consumer spending and government spending.  The caveat, of course, is that not even all the money in the world could fill (and can barely even briefly paper over) the inherently massive hole left in a shuttered-by-fiat economy until after the economy is fully reopened, at least not for very long.  Thus, the TSAP recommends the following steps be taken, yesterday:

• Expand the $600 per week to ALL Americans period, not just those receiving unemployment benefits, no strings attached.  Anyone with an SSN or ITIN gets it.  Maintain such payments until at least December 2020.
• Create a permanent UBI for all Americans, of $230 per week ($1000 per month) for adults and half that amount for children and young people under 18, for when the temporary extra $600 finally expires.  Again, no strings attached.
• Pass the HEROES Act and all of its associated stimuli, not the cheap Republican knockoff version.  After all, without essential workers, civilization would have collapsed by now, so it is literally the LEAST we can do to thank them.
• Extend the eviction moratorium until September 1 or until enough of the funds from the above are disbursed into the pockets of the people so they can pay enough to avoid eviction, whichever occurs later.  Consider also cancelling (and directly compensating with federal funds) landlords for all past due rent dating from March 1 until August 1.
• More funding to shore up small businesses, which are the very bedrock of the economy.
• Keep the US Postal Service running with whatever federal funds are necessary.
• Increase aid to the states, and funding for hospitals as well.  And while we're at it, implement Medicare For All as well.
• Three words:  Green New Deal.
• And of course, DON'T shut down again!

As for the so-called National Debt, that is really a non-problem for a Monetarily Sovereign government like our federal government, since they can literally just print the money.  And right now we have far more to worry about from deflation than we would from inflation.  Even if inflation did occur, all the federal government would have to do is resolve the shortages in goods and services that caused it, by directly purchasing such goods and services at a premium and selling (or giving) them at a loss.  And failing that, the FERAL Reserve (which, we gotta say, has been doing the heaviest financial lifting in terms of shoring up the economy just enough to prevent a total collapse thus far) can always raise interest rates and/or the reserve ratio (both of which are at rock-bottom levels), sell bonds to shrink its massive balance sheet (Quantitative Tightening), and/or drain and sterilze excess bank reserves if and when the "inflation dragon" ever does rear its ugly head at some point.  Thus, it would really be a non-problem.

So what are we waiting for? 

The Only Way Out Of The Pandemic In One Piece

As time goes on and the endgame of the COVID-19 pandemic is now coming into focus, it is becoming increasingly apparent that not only do lockdowns not work very well and in fact do more harm than good, but that there is really only one realistic way out of this nightmare at this juncture.  And that way out will ultimately come about sooner or later, via a combination of three things:

1. "Herd immunity", which simply means that a large enough percentage of the population has become at least relatively immune to the disease (either via natural infection and/or mass vaccination) so as to quash the epidemic and keep it from taking off again in the near future.  The former route is far more likely in the near term than the latter, and the herd immunity threshold (HIT) is most likely far lower than was originally believed, and many states and countries are likely already there by now.
2. "Attenuation", which really is just a fancy way of saying that the virus becomes weaker over time, losing its "mojo".  There is some evidence that this process has already begun at least several weeks ago.  Especially if combined with herd immunity, the virus may eventually become the new common cold, if not phase out entirely.
3. Better early treatment of patients with the disease.  This cannot be overstated, as we have learned a lot about how to treat such patients, and most importantly what NOT to do, through trial and error (sadly, mostly error).  Now if only the feds were use the Defense Production Act to force production of PPE for hospitals rather than focus on often counterproductive ventilators.

These three things are, of course, all a result of the widespread circulation of the virus, which of course came at a very heavy price in terms of human lives.  But once the proverbial horse is out of the barn, as it has already bolted long ago, such a thing is inevitable sooner or later.  Especially with the prospect of a safe and effective vaccine likely years away.

Sweden, as we know, understood this very well from the start.  It is really a shame how most other countries did not, and some still seem not to for whatever bizarre reason.  Instead, they mocked Sweden's moderate mitigation strategy and attempted to suppress the virus all the way to zero via lockdowns and mass quarantines, often belatedly.  Those that acted too late basically trashed their economies for nothing while inadvertently creating a Sweden-like herd immunity scenario anyway (albeit often with far more excess deaths), while those that acted early seemed to dodge a bullet, only to see a resurgence (or extra legs) of the virus later.  Basically, as the now-famous Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell predicted, a year from now (if not earlier) we will see that practically all countries and states will end up the same way (within error bounds) regardless of what strategies they pursued, a few lucky (or unlucky) outliers notwithstanding.

In other words, the virus is in the wild and has been for a while now, so shutting down again will only delay the inevitable, and drag it out that much longer and more painfully.  So don't do it again!

That said, we should also note that the TSAP unequivocally does NOT support the practice of "corona parties" or any other deliberate or grossly negligent mass infection-inducing behavior.  This virus is, at best, extremely difficult to control.  Just because most people will inevitably be exposed to the virus at some point does NOT mean that anyone should willingly and unnecessarily tempt fate in any way.  And even though the virus is relatively harmless to most people, that clearly does NOT mean that it is for everyone, and there are of course documented cases of people dying or suffering irreversible damage from it at surprisingly young ages.  This is still a potentially dangerous and deadly virus, after all.  So seriously, live your life, "keep calm and carry on" as the old saying goes, but please do take precautions, avoid large crowds, and don't be stupid and reckless about it!  Young people, this means you too.

UPDATE:  Some pundits apparently still believe in a "Zero Covid" strategy in which no level of the virus is tolerated, assuming that it can actually be truly eliminated via suppression measures.  The problem with that quixotic, ivory-tower idea is twofold--first, even if possible, we missed our chance to do it many months ago, and secondly, any attempt to do so now will only drag it out and prolong the pain by further delaying herd immunity.  With plenty of collateral damage too.  And we would basically have to live like the unfortunate folks in Susan Cooper's Orwellian-style dystopian novel Mandrake for the foreseeable future, a truly disproportionate response to a disease whose deadliness is most likely in the range of seasonal flu to medium pandemic flu.  And with most likely zero lives saved as a result.  Fortunately, we will likely reach herd immunity and/or attenuation of the virus sooner than expected, if not already there, so it won't be long before this debate becomes academic.

And sorry, but moving the goalposts does NOT really furbish the "Zero Covid" strategy one bit, which is still just as ridiculous as a "Zero Flu" strategy.  After all, there was a reason we were able to (relatively) tame the flu over time without eradicating it, and that reason was via the three aforementioned factors:  herd immunity, attenuation, and improvements in treating patients.  We'd be wise to learn from history.

Case Closed: Lockdowns Don't Work

A new study published in The Lancet examined the effects of various countermeasures and other country-level variables on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and related statistics in various countries.  And the results were rather underwhelming and disappointing for any lockdown enthusiast.  Behold the key takeaway, in the authors' own words:

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

And that was after controlling for a whole host of variables in a multivariate analysis.  As the late, great William Farr (of Farr's Law fame) has famously noted, "the death rate is a fact; anything beyond this is an inference".  That is, if you know the death rate for a given disease, you can fairly accurately estimate the (lagged) infection rate from that.  And that is especially true of COVID-19, where cases are often counted differently in different times and places.

(The Occam's Razor is as sharp as ever here.)

And that is not even the most scathing study done on the matter to date.  Followers of our blog may recall others as well that were far less charitable than this one.  Worse, in some countries, lockdowns actually appear to have been deadlier than doing nothing or taking less extreme measures.  In many countries, deaths with COVID and from COVID are conflated, and even non-COVID deaths saw increases during at least the first few weeks of lockdown.  Excess all-cause mortality in so many countries shows a rather suspicious pattern that is strongly suggestive that the government response of lockdowns (along with closely related policies such as artificial restrictions of healthcare and monumentally screwing up with nursing homes) likely caused far more deaths than the virus itself.  In fact, despite the fact that the virus was already circulating much earlier, excess all-cause mortality did not exceed statistical norms in any country until after such lockdowns were imposed.

If that is the case, then that is nothing short of mass murder!  And those are just the short-term effects, with longer-term effects coming down the pike.

At best, then, such lockdowns were unnecessary infringements on civil rights and liberties, and at worst they were far worse (and deadlier) than useless.  All the more reason NOT to repeat such mistakes going forward.  Seriously, don't do it!

So what about those few supposed success stories of countries and states that locked down very early in their epidemic curves and seemed to have dodged a bullet?  Well, take a look at them now, or if not now, a few weeks or months from now.  Those are the ones who are or will be having the much dreaded "second wave" of the virus, since they still have quite a ways to go before reaching even partial herd immunity thanks to their early lockdowns.  Meanwhile, those hard-hit countries and states with belated lockdowns (or none at all, like Sweden) will most likely avoid a second wave, having built up enough immunity to keep the virus from taking off once again.  A very lucky few countries in the former group might still remain lucky, of course, but as Dr. Sunetra Gupta notes, that is really thanks to the rest of the world building up such immunity, a classic "free-rider" problem that really is nothing to be so smug about.

The thing about viruses is, you can run, but you can't hide.  At least not for very long.  Sooner or later, it has to run its course.  It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that playing hide-and-seek with an invisible enemy would be a lose-lose proposition.

QED

JULY-NOVEMBER UPDATES:  Looks like yet another rug has been pulled out from under the strongest pro-lockdown argument recently, confirming the WHO's famous June 8th "gaffe" that truly asymptomatic transmission of the virus, while it exists, is indeed relatively rare and is thus not a particularly significant driver of the COVID-19 epidemic.  A new study in Annals of Internal Medicine in August simply confirmed what previous research has already found in that regard in countries that did very thorough and detailed contact tracing.  And of course, we now know that the decision to implement lockdowns was really due to countries simply copying each other and flying blind, not based on empirical evidence.  And the whole general concept has quite a checkered pedigree as well, while its original justification of "flattening the curve" was quickly and thoroughly supplanted by moving the proverbial goalposts practically 180 degrees.

(While presymptomatic transmission and subtly symptomatic transmission is apparently quite common, that is also true for the flu as well, a virus for which large-scale mass quarantines have been roundly discredited as useless and counterproductive for nearly a century.  The lockdown zealots can't have it both ways: either COVID-19 is as stealthy and practically unstoppable as the flu and common cold, and lockdowns are thus utterly useless, OR it is possible to contain it without lockdowns, and lockdowns are thus utterly unnecessary.)

And yet another study has recently found that the curve was in fact largely self-flattening from the start with or without lockdowns or other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as curfews, closures, quarantines, travel restrictions, event bans, or even the much-vaunted mask mandates.  That is, while the growth rate of the epidemic inherently started out very high, it had already begun decelerating after roughly the 25th cumulative death was recorded in practically every country studied regardless, with the daily curve peaking or plateauing within 20-30 days from then.  Even long before herd immunity was or will be reached, transmission rates were already slowing down dramatically due to the virus reaching "natural dead-ends and roundabouts" in human social networks.  Which is really not surprising for a virus that is primarily transmitted by a small "superspreading" sliver of the population, and that still in a highly heterogeneous population in terms of susceptibility as well.  And even if lockdowns and/or other NPIs were perhaps somewhat effective at first, any such effectiveness apparently rapidly decays over time to essentially nil by now.

And Lyman Stone, an early opponent of lockdowns, noted all the way back in April that Americans, much like Europeans, generally began voluntarily social distancing before, and often well before, lockdowns went into effect.  This was particularly true in Washington State, but true to an extent practically everywhere eventually.  Information and recommendations would thus appear far more effective than coercion, especially when done early.

Still not convinced yet?  Well, even more new evidence just keeps piling up, and none of it is particularly flattering to lockdowns.  Also, for the USA, it appears that the significant regional variations in the death curves are far more due to to climate and seasonality than to lockdowns and NPIs.  The Northeast was "early peak" much like Europe, the South and Southwest was "late peak" much like Latin America, and the Midwest and Northwest were essentially "no peak", just a long and low undulating plateau.  And a few borderline states were "mixed", not clearly fitting into any category.  All essentially independent of the timing and relative stringency of lockdown and reopening.  Thus, looking at the USA as a monolithic country, especially when comparing it to Europe, is highly misleading and disingenuous.

See also this video by the ever-insightful Ivor Cummins as well.  A real eye-opener indeed!

Thus, yet again we see that anti-lockdown Sweden (and Belarus, etc.) was not a special case at all, but rather the proper control group while the rest of the world essentially embarked on a crazy experiment whose theory behind it didn't really pan out.

Oh, and about that supposed "success" story of Peru?  There's a good reason why lockdown enthusiasts don't seem to want to talk much about them anymore.  Let's see:  world's longest lockdown (over six months), world's toughest lockdown (makes Melbourne look like a walk in the park), world's earliest lockdown (for their region), and--wait for it--world's worst death rate.  If that's "success", we'd really hate to see what failure looks like!  Now their fully-open neighbor Brazil doesn't really look so bad after all, do they?

(Pardon the pun, but don't cry for me, Argentina, either.  Another longest-lockdown country now getting the worst of both worlds, with the added insult of borderline hyperinflation (again!) as well.)

Later, Belgium of course became a bit worse than Peru once again despite going back to lockdown, as their second wave appears to rival their first one.  Neither their first nor their second lockdown seem to have done them a lick of good.  Supposedly they have quite a problem with Vitamin D deficiency, kinda like New York and the UK, so they might wanna start fortifying their food like the Nordic countries do.

Thus, in conclusion, the most fundamental flaw of lockdowns of all flavors is that it is applying a micro-level solution (quarantine of sick individuals and/or their contacts) to the macro level (mass quarantine of the healthy as well, over a wide area), which ultimately creates far worse macro-level problems.  The same can perhaps even be said about overbroad mask mandates as well, at least in the long run.  History will not judge such measures kindly at all.

And in case you think that the shiny new October study in The Lancet somehow overturns the aforementioned ever-growing mountain of evidence against lockdowns, well, we've got a shiny new bridge we'd like to sell you.  The ever-insightful Toby Young of the British site Lockdown Sceptics has an excellent takedown of this highly questionable study.  If only the UK Government (and indeed the rest of the world) would actually listen to him for once.

Meanwhile, yet another study finds that lockdowns still don't work in terms of reducing death rates, and another finds that the recent autumn outbreaks are (surprise!) strongly correlated with seasonality regardless of policy.  Case closed, full stop.

See also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  

The Progressive Case For Reopening American Schools Sooner Than Later

NOTE:  This article is about K-12 schools only.  For the college question, please see this here.

Politics in the USA in 2020 has apparently gone from absurd to utterly horrifying to just plain silly.  The latest political football is whether America's schools should reopen in the fall, having been closed in all 50 states and territories since mid to late March.  Democrats are generally against it, while Republicans and especially Trump and his supporters are in favor of it.  Even Betsy DeVos, who has never been a friend of public education, suddenly pretends to support it (while surreptitiously trying to gut and ultimately privatize it, of course), while Democrats who are usually the the biggest champions of public education are more likely to oppose reopening.  Thus it seems to split rather evenly along party lines, as often happens in today's fraught and bizarre political climate.

But when you peel back the politics and see the issue for what it really is, then the only truly progressive position at this juncture is to reopen schools.  Because keeping them closed does more harm than good on balance, to both children and society at large.  And strictly and seriously "following the science" would in fact point strongly in favor of reopening schools.

School closures are a classic example of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  While school closures are known to work very well in the short term in slowing the spread of influenza and infectious diseases in general, the longer-term effects are unknown, and children (and teens) seem to be at relatively low risk from this virus as well as not a particularly significant vector for spreading it to adults.  While some evidence strongly suggests that temporary school closures early in the epidemic curve have helped to flatten that curve (even if only indirectly to reduce the number of adults infecting each other), it remains unclear how long such benefits can last (likely not very long).  Many countries like Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Taiwan (all fairly progressive countries) have already reopened schools with no evidence of any resurgence of the disease that could possibly be related to the reopenings, and Sweden never closed them at all for children under 16.  Belarus even kept colleges and universities open too, and yet they still have one the mildest outbreaks in the world.

Meanwhile, the collateral consequences of keeping schools closed keep on increasing the longer schools remain closed.  Virtual learning will never be as good as in-person instruction.  Students fall behind and find it harder and harder to catch up, and socioeconomic inequalities and inequities are widened that much more.  Children are denied the socialization experiences that are needed for healthy development.  And it also creates a heavy burden on parents, particularly working mothers, making work-life balance all but impossible.  There is clearly nothing "woke" or progressive denying such realities.

And the CDC guidance for reopening schools isn't really that much better than keeping them closed.  As famous Libertarian and Republican Senator Ron Paul himself noted back in May:

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did its part to encourage homeschooling when it unveiled “guidelines” for schools to follow when they reopen. Among the CDC’s guidelines are that schools put tape on the hallways, directing children which direction to walk and how much distance to keep between themselves and their classmates. The CDC also recommends children do not share electronic devices or learning aids. The guidelines even say children should wear masks at school.The CDC’s guidelines instruct schools to close playgrounds and cafeterias, and to cancel all field trips and assemblies. Instead, students are to spend all day at their desks, not even leaving classrooms for lunch or recess.The CDC’s guidelines may not have the force of law, but it is likely most government schools will adopt them in order to ensure continued access to federal funding. Schools will do this even though children are at a very low risk of being seriously harmed by coronavirus. In fact, by forbidding children from going outside to play, exercise, and get sunshine, the guidelines actually endanger children’s health. The guidelines also harm children by limiting their ability to interact with their fellow students and develop social skills.

Now you KNOW things are bad in this country when Ron Paul (and/or his son Rand Paul) is anywhere even close to sounding like the voice of reason!  Keep in mind that in most of the countries that already reopened schools (or never closed them), none of these rigid and utterly dystopian protocols were employed in their schools, or at least not for very long.  Generally, the only notable departure from the status quo ante was a greater focus on hygiene, and that was basically it.  And the sky did not fall.

(The creators of South Park would surely have a field day with that!  Per Poe's Law, the satire writes itself.)

Yes, some precautions are certainly needed, particularly in schools that are located in communities where the virus is still spreading.  But we don't need to keep schools closed indefinitely or go full dystopia either.  The best advice the TSAP can recommend is that decisions be made as locally as possible, with all schools in this country planning on fully reopening by September 8 at the latest, and playing it by ear from then.  If there is a known outbreak (of three or more individuals) on school grounds/vehicles or otherwise linked to the school, a severe outbreak in the local community (i.e. a virus test positivity rate exceeding 10% for a 7 day rolling average) and/or excessive absenteeism for any reason, a brief precautionary closure not to exceed two consecutive weeks ought to be done without delay for that particular school or district only.  For excessive absenteeism specifically, the brief closures may be further extended as necessary for the duration of the bulk of the absences, kinda like was done locally with the 2009, 1968, and 1957 flu pandemics in some schools. But otherwise, schools should plan on being fully open by default.

Additionally, even after fully reopening for in-person classes, distance learning should also still remain as an option on the menu for any students with high-risk household members (or with serious underlying health conditions themselves), as well as for any teachers who believe themselves or their household members to be at high risk.  That way, even if the odd outbreak does happen to occur at school, it would really be a non-problem practically speaking.

As for masks and social distancing, and other restrictive protocols, that should be decided locally as well, and in our opinion only implemented as an alternative to closure when there is locally widespread community transmission but not (yet) seen among students, teachers, or staff.  Otherwise, a greater focus on hygiene, disinfection, and ventilation should be the only significant departure from the old normal, and perhaps also reasonably limit class sizes and the size of large assemblies.  And perhaps fever checks at the door as well.  That is, use common sense.

And parents/guardians, for the love of all that is good, please keep your kids home if they have any questionable symptoms, or if anyone else in the same household is under isolation or quarantine for known or suspected COVID-19 or any other contagion.  Honestly, that is just basic Public Health 101.

And yes, public schools should receive more funding going forward, and teachers should be paid more.  And if it is done by our Monetarily Sovereign federal government as as opposed to (our often already overtaxing and borderline bankrupt) state and local governments, it won't cost the taxpayers anything.

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  It looks like a few states have already reopened schools with in-person classes as of early August, such as Indiana and even (gasp!) Georgia.  And apparently parts of Montana already did back in May, as did parts of Canada.  And by now, practically all of Europe too.  All with no evidence of any "parade of horribles" resulting from their decisions to do so.

OCTOBER UPDATE:  Many (though still not all) American schools have reopened, and it looks like it really was not a disaster after all.  Well fewer than 1% of both students and teachers have had confirmed or even suspected cases since the current school year began.  In fact, a recent analysis in 191 countries worldwide found no link between school reopenings and coronavirus infection rates.  But hey, we (and Sweden) could have told you that months ago, and in fact we literally did.  Now if only the remaining schools would finally open as well, yesterday.

Even The Atlantic now admits that the fears about schools reopening were grossly overblown.  Even in (gasp!) Georgia.  And the esteemed British Medical Journal (BMJ) now believes that closing schools had backfired and actually led to a net increase in COVID deaths compared to keeping them open.

NOVEMBER UPDATE:  A new study finds that closing schools likely costs children more life years than it saves in the long run.  That is, on balance, doing so actually kills more children than it saves.

Looks Like Sweden Won The Debate After All

Short version:  Sweden clearly won the lockdown debate, opting instead for a far more sustainable strategy that balanced the short-term goal of "flattening the curve" with the longer-term goal of "herd immunity", and the virus is now on the run and all but disappeared from their country as of July.

Longer and more nuanced version:  Sweden is one of those countries that, in our polarized world, you either love them or hate them.  Being the most famous of the non-lockdown countries, the anti-lockdown side loves them while the pro-lockdown side just loves to hate them.  Which makes sense, given how Sweden is one of the few and most well-known countries who chose not to do a lockdown at all.

In truth, however, they are neither a shining city on a hill, nor are they an unmitigated disaster in terms of how they handled the COVID-19 pandemic.  They are in fact...about average by European standards, at least in terms of per capita death rates for now.  Worse than their Nordic neighbors and Germany and Austria, but better than the UK, Belgium, Spain and Italy.  Worse than the USA as a whole, but better than the seven worst US states, especially New York.  Which is nothing to brag about, of course, but hardly a ringing endorsement for lockdowns either.  Especially since they avoided completely annihilating their economy (albeit still suffering) and inflicting other collateral damage that the lockdowns in other countries (especially the UK) did, while still being able to "flatten the curve" and thus keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and collapsing Lombardy-style.

The architect of the Swedish mitigation strategy of moderate social distancing, Anders Tegnell, admits that Sweden could and should have done more.  And yes, they did screw up in several major ways, at least in the beginning.  But he still does not endorse a full lockdown.  So what could they have done differently, short of a lockdown?

Here are the things that come to mind that they should have done but didn't, or should have done earlier but did too late:

• They kept their borders wide open with no hard restrictions on international travel or even any health screenings at ports of entry.  Even Japan and Belarus didn't make that mistake.  In hindsight, that was really quite foolish.
• They did not declare a state of emergency.  Even the Donald did that, albeit belatedly.
• Their gatherings limit of 500 people, first imposed on March 11, should have been cut down to 50 people or some other double-digit threshold much sooner, ideally on that same day or the very next day, rather than waiting until early April to finally do so.
• They should have made virus testing available much sooner.  Instead, until very recently, you literally had to be sick enough to go to the hospital in order to get a test as per their test rationing policy that began in March.
• They made a reasonable stab at contact tracing at first, but gave up when the numbers grew too overwhelming.  (Though even with very little testing, they could still have done it the Japanese way had they started earlier than they did.)
• Like most countries, they should have done a better job protecting nursing homes. In Sweden's case, they should have banned or severely restricted visits to nursing homes much, much sooner, instead of being loosey-goosey about it until finally doing so on March 31.  And they should have made sure early on that the staff had (and used) adequate masks and PPE, which they failed to do.  Even Florida did better than they did, though New York and New Jersey were far worse, as was the UK.
• Their triage protocols for nursing home patients being (not) sent to the hospital turned out to be wholly unnecessary and counterproductive.  Ditto for any other artificial restrictions on health care.  (Other countries did this too, so this was not unique to Sweden.)
• And like most countries also failed at, they should have kept colleges open even if they canceled classes temporarily.  Sending students home to infect their parents and grandparents was probably not the wisest idea in the world.
• And last but not least, they advised against face masks (and apparently still do) on the mistaken belief that they create a false sense of security and lead to less social distancing.  And that stance does not appear to be accurate.  (Though admittedly, the book has still not been 100% written on the question of net effects just yet.)

Aside from those flaws, there is still much to admire about Sweden and their strategy.  But ultimately they are paying a rather heavy price for their earlier errors, even after belatedly correcting such mistakes.  They likely will reach the holy grail of "herd immunity" sooner or later, if they are not already there, but unfortunately due their missteps, the journey turned out to be much more dangerous than the destination.  Thus, we give Sweden a gentleman's C for effort.  Still far better than several lockdown countries did.

As for population density, in case someone uses that argument, it is misleading to compare average densities across nations, given the large variations in density and distribution within each country.  And even so, higher densities do NOT necessarily imply higher per capita death rates, in fact the opposite may very well be true as a result of at least somewhat better healthcare provision in denser areas.

It looks like not only is Sweden's COVID epidemic all but oven now as per Worldometer death rates, and their death curve did turn out to be much more bell-shaped after all, but that Sweden is now quite vindicated indeed compared to even some of their neighbors in terms of cumulative all-cause mortality through the first 24 weeks (roughly the first half) of 2020.  Though worse than Norway, Sweden nevertheless fell very close to and just between Denmark and Finland, and fared far better than Scotland.  So it looks like the lockdown zealot vultures will need to find a new punching bag now--take a guess which country? 

(Hint: it's the one that is still not only debating on whether to reopen schools in the fall, but actually has the GALL to crassly turn the issue into a silly political football because it is an election year.  Really. Meanwhile, most other countries have successfully reopened K-12 schools with essentially no problems, and Sweden never closed them at all.)

Additionally, it looks like the Swedish city of Malmo is in fact doing a particularly good job overall.  After watching and learning what not to do from the early hotspot of Stockholm, they followed essentially the same Swedish strategy minus the nursing home screwups, basically, and as we can see now, it's really paying off.  Their per capita death rate is lower than even Copenhagen, Denmark across the Oresund strait.  That is, they are achieving herd immunity AND protecting the most vulnerable members of society at the same time, while maintaining individual freedom and avoiding an economic depression.  Now THAT is really a shining city on a hill!

(Lest anyone claim that somehow America is too diverse and multicultural for the Swedish model to work here, keep in mind that Malmo is also a very diverse and multicultural city as well.)

In other words, we can certainly learn a lot from Sweden--both what to do as well as what not to do.  But all things considered, Sweden clearly wins the debate hands-down.