Ethical Necessity: Remove The Lockdown For Those Who Have Antibodies To The Virus

We live in a science fiction world. It requires science-fiction solutions. Having the law take into account antibody levels is going from science fiction, to plain science. Letting people naturally vaccinated against the Coronavirus to function normally is not just possible, but necessary.

For starters, knowing who has antibodies will allow to engage in plasma therapy, where antibodies can be injected directly. That was used successfully in the Spanish flu of 1918. In 1890 Emil (thereafter “Von”) Behring (first medicine Nobel, 1901) published an article with Kitasato Shibasaburō reporting that they had developed “antitoxins” against both diphtheria and tetanus.

Some will say it’s unethical to let those resistant to the virus, who are naturally immunized, to be able to behave normally, because it will “marginalize” the others. But the concept of “margin” is a fringe. One can’t “marginalize” the majority. It’s a philosophical impossibility. If a fringe of people is allowed to function normally, it can’t “marginalize” the majority. When most of society has become vaccinated against the virus, one way or another, there will be “herd immunity”, and there will be increasingly less reason to give a pass only to those who had the virus.

Much of that would not have happened, had China not been led by liars, had plutocratic globalization not occured, removing basic safeguards, and had more “leaders” understood exponentials…


330,309 Cases which had an outcome:

261,132 (79%) Recovered / Discharged

69,177 (21%) DEATHS

Some will say that enabling the virus resistant individuals would encourage others to walk out of their homes, and intentionally to contract the disease to rejoin society. That would be completely unethical, and is already illegal, besides being painful and dangerous. 

To save the biosphere, and us, will require more science. To use all the resources that science already puts at our disposal forces us to invent new laws.

In conclusion, generalized antibody testing, and giving a pass to those who have antibodies should be part of restarting the economy, something to be done as soon as possible… Also for ethical reasons: a dead society kills people as surely as a living virus

We need to get really smart from now on: we were stupid to believe the lies of the Chinese dictatorship (which  is now leveraging the crisis it caused, by selling medical equipment all over the world). China knew of human to human transmission, mid-December 2019. Then lied about it officially on January 14, 2020. That was reinforced by similar lies of the WHO in early February 2020. Thus the world health authorities were criminally misled by Chinese dictator Xi and his goons.

Weird twists are also imaginable. Indeed some coronaviruses which give colds provide only with a three months immunity (although indications are, from tests cruelly applied to monkeys, that SARS1 provides a lasting immunity… the present virus, SARS2, is closely related to SARS1…) In any case, testing for antibodies (“serology”, very different from the PCR test to detect the virus itself) is of the essence. As Trump said many times, the remedy can’t be worse than the cure. The essential part of the economy can’t be stopped forever.

Test, therefore you will be.

Patrice Ayme


Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Ethical Necessity: Remove The Lockdown For Those Who Have Antibodies To The Virus”

  1. Physiologist USA Says:

    April 5
    @Patrice Ayme When most of society has herd immunity (if this is pre-vaccine development), then lots of people will have died.

    Folks, herd immunity achieved by letting most people get the live virus is a ticket to lots of deaths and serious illness. It does eventually reduce infection rate, but at a high price.

    If we as a society decide that’s the price we’re willing to pay to get the economy back on track, OK. But don’t think herd immunity achieved by widespread infection with the live virus (vs herd immunity from widespread use of a vaccine) would be easy or painless or magical.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      @Physiologist I was NOT advocating herd immunity. I am against it, and when scientists in France and Britain advocated it for a while, I found that outrageous, and now those countries are paying the price. Indeed the death rate is much higher than is usually presented for “Herd Immunity” to work without great pain. And maybe people catch the virus again (Corona viruses tend to do that).

      I was just demolishing the argument that people naturally vaccinated against the virus should NOT be allowed to work, just because others can’t work… The argument was found in the New York Times… I was focusing on the concept of “marginalization”: one can’t “marginalize” the majority. But the countries will need to return to more work, ASAP. Authorizing those with antibodies is (part of) a way to do it. So I said what I said not something else outrageous.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Gmax Says:

    Your death rate is spooky. ;-)… But for the rest, well, yes. What else?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pierre Thalamy Says:

    @Patrice Ayme I am wondering why you call the death rate from Our World In Data the “Real Death Rate” of the virus, when it’s clear it is strongly biased by the fact that most countries (wrongly, I agree) only test citizens with extreme symptoms for the virus. If even a low number of overall cases show extreme symptoms but those are the only ones getting reported, this can lead to such a high death rate indeed, but it is by no means the “Real Death Rate” of the virus.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Pierre, sorry about the delay in approval of the comment, in theory (not always true, software is strange!) your next comment should get in immediately…

      OK, so what I am talking about is the OBJECTIVE DEATH RATE. The way death rate have always been calculated: (how many died)/(how many got the disease).
      Now speculative research paper have claimed that, for one known COVID case, there were TEN (10) silent cases. I read in detail one of these papers in Science (I am a subscriber) just after it got out. It looked to me to be extremely speculative. I am a mathematician, and I agree one can hold reasonings. However we have to wait for antibody tests.

      But, in any case, the ten times multiplier looks wildly speculative to me. Dr. Fauci yesterday said there was a wild debate among experts… But then his own estimate was 25% to 50% more cases… Not 1,000% higher (as the Science paper had it).

      That there are silent cases is not in doubt: thus we know the epidemic was rampant in Lombardy during January, from antibody tests… The virus had been sent from Wuhan. Taiwan had locked its borders by December 2019…

      Last point: even if one accepts the extravagant multiplier from the Science paper, that’s still a death rate of 2%… Now all sorts of reasonings can be made. For example the elevated death rate in Italy, Spain or France, relative to Germany is caused by the fact the infected population in Germany was much younger (from ski resorts).
      This was my worst pessimistic case, with no mitigation tried:

      But mitigation (world quarantine) was tried and has been pretty successful! This being said, the essential economy has to keep on going and be expanded… Right away. However cases in China are picking up… And Tokyo and Singapore are imposing lockdowns… TOMORROW, April 7…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: