Peter Olson, Goonengerry
A new study conducted by Dr Dan Aderka of the Sheba Medical Centre, published in The Jerusalem Post (7/10/20), says that male COVID-19 sufferers could experience reduced fertility. Dr Aderka reported that there was a 50 per cent decrease in the sperm volume, concentration, and motility, in patients with moderate disease, even 30 days after diagnosis.
Another study by Edinburgh University, that examined various COVID-19 lockdown-style scenarios, found that while they might protect hospitals, they ‘could also prolong the pandemic’ and that school lockdowns ‘may increase the death toll’, by preventing herd immunity building up among the young and healthy (Daily Mail 9/10/20).
I’m a bit mystified by your juxtaposition of research findings here, Peter. Surely the findings on male fertility point to the undesirability of mass infection rates among the young and healthy with the aim of building herd immunity. Unless your aim is population control.
Most epidemiologists question the viability of a herd immunity response given the 90% odd infection rate thought necessary, the resultant death toll (especially among health professionals) and the likely collapse of health systems. Then there is the unknown duration of any immunity derived from infection with genomic evidence already of second Infections.
Read carefully: ” … says that male COVID-19 sufferers could experience reduced fertility.”
That means they “could”, not that they would, will or should.
It is about langauge not about facts.
If they “could” it also means they “could not” as well. If some could, then some also could not.
For example:
” … says that male COVID-19 sufferers could experience fertility while others could not experience fertility.
That means everything is normal.
Every cloud….