A July 29 letter addressing my July 15 letter (“COVID-19 thoughts") warrants my rebuttal. Most COVID-19 “reporting” emphasizes its negative aspects. There certainly are negatives, but my point was to highlight one possibly beneficial aspect of the outbreak in younger, healthier individuals; that is, herd immunity, the ultimate path to resolution of the pandemic.

My letter began, “This letter is not intended to ignore the impact and consequences of COVID-19...” Later, I wrote, “This is not at all meant to minimize the significance of loss of life...” So, Mr. Gerrity’s statement that there was “no mention of the costs with gaining herd immunity” is incorrect.

As a physician, an older person and assistant professor of family, community and preventive medicine at an Arizona medical school, I thoroughly understand the consequences of coronavirus and its public health implications. Gerrity’s statement that I was “touting lots of people getting sick during a pandemic” is a gross mischaracterization and a flagrant insult to my character.

As to comments about herd immunity being difficult to achieve, we’re still gaining knowledge. Sweden had no strict lockdown, but recent data show that it fared better than many other European neighbors in terms of deaths and is well on its way to pre-COVID normalcy.

Several other countries, and the state of California, with strict mitigation measures, have not all fared as well. This is not to say that mitigation has no benefit, but epidemiology teaches us that mitigation efforts can delay the achievement of herd immunity and actually prolong the time course of the epidemic/pandemic. “Flattening of the curve” typically extends that curve further into the future.

As I wrote before, herd immunity (via actual infection or vaccination) is the standard mechanism by which an epidemic/pandemic is overcome. One way or another, this will be overcome.