Diminishing Returns

Have we come to the point of diminishing returns concerning the protective measure we have put into place? Some would argue that we have far exceeded this by which the harm we continue to cause aspects of the economy and mental health to name a few, have brought the entire handling of the Covid situation into a heated debate.

If we view us, the people of Ontario as the patient, the law of diminishing returns, first described by economists to explain why, beyond a certain point, additional inputs produce smaller and smaller outputs, offers insight into many situations encountered in virology. For example, when the risk of an adverse event can be reduced in several different ways, the impact of each intervention can generally be shown mathematically to be reduced by the previous ones. The diminishing value of successive interventions is further reduced by adverse consequences (economic, mental health, education, rise in suicides), as well as by the total expenditures of time, energy, and resources, which increase with each additional intervention. It is therefore important to try to prioritize interventions based on patient-centred, goals and the relative impact and acceptability of the interventions.

In situations where multiple tests or treatments could be recommended for the same patient (this is us). In the quest for diagnostic certainty, one can be led into a false sense of accomplishment by the results of mass testing and well-executed diagnostics that provide little or no diagnostic information in that as one approaches diagnostic certainty the useful information returned by diagnostic tests and observations approaches zero.

In our case, the government must weigh the benefit and harm of each sequential intervention as in lockdowns and decide how far to extend the controls and how much longer to proceed in fine-tuning the patient’s health.

We truly have witnessed that lockdowns are questionable and at all costs should be avoided. It is also well-documented lockdowns should only be used as a short-term solution and measure. To even consider another lockdown to address a possible phase 4, that you can see in my diagram, “phases” are nothing more than a lot of activity of masses blanket bombing testing, with little return in terms of reducing deaths. Some experts are now thinking, that deaths are inevitable and these measures we put in place are, at best, delaying the inevitable. As my illustration clearly shows, with the PCR test and its flaws, about 65% are false positives, and make up many of those, are patients who only have merely have dead particulates of the disease, that is neither contagious nor cause any clinical symptoms. Additionally of all positive cases 98+% of all patients fully recover from primarily minor symptoms. While all this activity goes on, the media runs with the narrative of all the positive cases that cause alarm for those who do not understand the numbers. I find this simply horrible and the media and government need to fully qualify these cases and explain, 98% will recover and as high as 65% are false positives (depending on the Cycle Threshold used).

I would then ask this government, based on what criteria would you even consider another lockdown and further, why are we not opened up fully since the numbers do not support it.

Leave a Reply