Better die a hero than live a coward

Better die a hero than live a coward

By ilnegro | ilnegro | 21 Apr 2020


Starting from the epidemic of COVID-19 and how the various nations have reacted to this problem, I want to make a broader and more general discussion, which invests the modern approach to life, disease, death.

In my opinion, we have been making the same mistakes for a long time now, and these errors derive from our philosophical vision of the quality/quantity life/death relationship that affects our entire way of life.

Although initially several countries, the UK, the USA, Sweden, Brazil and certainly others have tried to pursue a pragmatic approach, which in a nutshell could be summarized: "useless to take action, who must die will die, we can not do anything about it".

With the passing of the days and with the increase of the dead, all have been forced by their public opinion to take measures more or less in line with those taken first in China, then in Italy and gradually in all or almost all the nations of the world.

I state that personally I think it sensible, in the specific case of COVID-19, to try to flatten the contagion growth curve in order to minimize the devastating impact on healthcare facilities (where they exist), but in my opinion this impossibility of a different approach is a signal of western culture now dominant all over the world, right or wrong.

Our culture favors the well-being and health of the individual over the general one, it favors quantity both as a length of life and in food or in any other aspect compared to quality.

For this reason, we have undertaken absurd therapeutic paths or artificially keep people whose quality of life, always in my opinion, does not apply objectively, but above all subjectively to be lived, for years, sometimes for decades.

My grandmother, attached to the oxygen cylinder, semi-unconscious, perpetually enticed, as soon as she could speak she said: "Lasem murì par piasè!" which, translated from the dialect means: "Let me die, please".

Take for example the use of antibiotics.
Obviously for the single person who has a bacterial infection underway an antibiotic cure is a way to overcome the infection quickly and heal without having to rely solely on one's immune system.

If antibiotics had not been used, many people would have probably died prematurely.

However, from the point of view of the community, of humanity as a whole, the use of antibiotics has led to the artificial selection of bacteria that are increasingly resistant to antibiotics, thus leading to a race for the use of ever new antibiotics that will select ever stronger bacteria.
This is now considered a potentially lethal health emergency for humanity.

In short, to extend our life we ​​are mortgaging the health of our children.
We have selected increasingly weaker humans, whose immune systems become increasingly sluggish as they can rely on antibiotics, and at the same time bacteria that are increasingly stronger and resistant to antibiotics.

This approach has already proven to be deleterious.

In my opinion we are making the exact same mistake with vaccines, both with respect to bacteria and, above all, with respect to viruses.

As antibiotics were probably to be used much more sparingly, only in extreme cases and by accepting the risk of losing a certain amount of patients, we are also making exaggerated use of vaccinations.

In fact, if on the one hand for diseases with very high and easily spread mortality rates it certainly makes sense and a mass vaccination has indeed obtained excellent results, the vaccinations have then, on the wave of these positive results, been extended to diseases gradually with less and less important consequences and / or with less diffusion capacity.

Vaccinations, applied to highly mutant bacteria or viruses, in my opinion (not only of course of course), are also achieving the same result as the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
Let's take the example of flu vaccinations, also in this case the result is to select mutations of increasingly aggressive viruses; in particular, the very fact of vaccinating for the x strain will only favor the spread of the y strain, which has been taking place systematically for several years.

The same problem has been seen for whooping cough and for anti-meningococcal vaccination.
Currently in Italy the anti-meningococcal vaccination covers the B and C strains and, obviously, the outbreaks of meningitis in recent years are mostly linked to the strains not covered by the vaccination.

As in everything we tend to fall in love with a certain solution and use it by stretching its usefulness, trying, in this case, to face all types of diseases always using the same approach. For a certain period, viral infections were treated with antibiotics, often with the "excuse" that, due to the viral infection, bacterial superinfection could arise, which is possible, but to be assessed case by case, not ex-ante.

The central point, however, remains the fact that it has always been preferred to try to eliminate the risk of the individual subject, that is, the patient we face, with respect to general health.

In 1981 the measles mortality rate in Italy was 0%, BEFORE the introduction of the measles vaccine, which is by no means mandatory.

Does it make sense to vaccinate around 500,000 people every year against a disease that caused 0 deaths before the introduction of the vaccination?

Obviously not.
Is there a real risk that new measles outbreaks may arise that can lead to the death of a significant number of people in Italy?
Obviously yes.

Can we accept this risk?

This is the point, the current approach strongly favors the no, we cannot accept this risk, even at the cost of making, in the long run, all the diseases more aggressive and the immune system of the population increasingly weak.

Are we sure it's the right choice?

This attitude of absolute opposition to the risk of the individual makes us underestimate that a life that is worth living is always related to a certain dose of risk and that death CANNOT be avoided, at the most delayed.
This problem is not just about medicine, it is about our lifestyle in general.

We also behave as regards the type of life that we offer to our children, we try to avoid them any risk, they must not run, they must not jump, they must not get dirty, etc. etc.
Did this help to decrease mortality in minors?

Yes of course.

Has it improved their life?

In my opinion, no, but obviously this reply is absolutely questionable.

My elementary school teacher apostrophized the doctor because his son, who was like me a pupil of his, lived practically imprisoned at home for fear of anything, according to the teacher the first time he was away from home he would have been pulled under a car .
In fact he managed to break his leg badly without even leaving the house.

Obviously raising a child by letting him take risks increases the probability of having serious accidents or of dying, but he will probably be a better adult, which way to choose?

Our company has chosen to raise its children by keeping them in a crystal case, making them eternal children unable to face life alone.

Regarding the COVID-19 flu vaccine report, I report this article: Uk Warnings

Attention, in this case a different reasoning is made, since all the risk categories in Uk are strongly invited to do the flu vaccine, the very fact that you have made the vaccine is a signal that you belong to a risk category , there is no question of whether the vaccine itself increases the risk.

I take a little more, trying to relate the data of different countries where the catchment area to which it is strongly recommended to make the flu vaccine is roughly the same but the vaccination rate of the risk categories is very different , it goes from over 70% in the UK to less than 5% in Estonia.

Also as a premise to the updated version of this morning's data that you find here, I am looking for a more meaningful deaths, for now I have found data on deaths in Italy in 2017.

In that year 14,179 people died from the flu and pneumonia.
I was unable to find the monthly figure, however considering that most of these deaths occur in the winter months I would say that 1,000 per month on average from November to March is a reasonable value.

You can find the data here

In the last 41 days in Italy we already have 13,155 official deaths, which are considered underestimated by many parties, therefore the delta compared to 2017 is significant.
I am looking for equivalent data at European level to be able to make a comparison.



I was born, I am currently alive, sooner or later I will die



Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.