Professor Gupta

[LadyLindaT]

May I just point out that this Oxford Professor who is all over the media at the moment is a Professor of Zoology?

If you'd be happy not to have treatment for the virus and happy to live or die quietly at home following the onset of symptoms, (and accepting that there would also not be treatment available for you for other diseases because those who has got Covid would have jam-packed the hospitals) it would be possible to see some kind of rationale behind the argument.

But the people advocating herd immunity would still turn up to overflowing hospitals staffed by exhausted HCPs expecting treatment or oxygen and a ventilator, despite knowing there won't be enough of anything. They're not willing to bear the consequences of their decisions.

I don't agree with her at this stage of things for several reasons (and I've changed my mind about how this virus should be tackled as the months have gone on- I'll probably keep doing that), however I think it's absolutely vital we have different voices in a conversation about something as huge as a pandemic. She is clearly highly intelligent. It would worry me very profoundly if we were only listening to one expert voice and everyone else got shouted down.

And I don't think this 'shielding the vulnerable only' is so stupid - no it's not workable for lots of reasons as the sole way of beating the virus and I wouldn't argue otherwise at this stage, but there ways in which we could be looking at that argument and doing more to shield people most at risk to reduce the impact of the pandemic.

As an example - in March there were threads on here where people were despairing that their retired, elderly parents were carrying on as normal and refusing to stop doing what they wanted. That went on for weeks - there were so many posts about the issue. A campaign to target that age group and use behavioural psychology to achieve higher compliance with social distancing would have been helpful in reducing deaths. There are so many elderly people who actually could have done more to protect themselves - I'm not talking about the most frail who need regular medical care. There were huge numbers going 'well I'm going to keep doing x because I want to.' My own vulnerable aunt continued to meet people all through lockdown at the age of 85 - she is extremely stubborn at the best of times and wasn't prepared to make any sacrifice. And you can say she would have been very isolated had she not done that. Yes, she would, but you could have used some of the BILLIONS which have gone into failed tracing of contacts to pay for social support so that anyone elderly staying in had regular phone calls, visits to their gardens from a dedicated welfare team with some basic mental health training behind them (that could have been so easy to set up) and home medical care being carried out where appropriate (by hcps who were tested intensively for the virus to limit spread) Probably quite a proportion of elderly medical care can be done with home visits because it's basic things.

Even effectively shielding 35-40% of the vulnerable properly would reduce the burden on hospitals - there is no society who can just lock away all vulnerable people to protect them fully, of course they can't - lots of vulnerable people are actively participating in society - but that doesn't mean to say we can't protect some. Morally, we should be aiming to do that as much as is possible and allow as many other people to keep working as much as possible, too, bearing in mind recessions cause huge numbers of deaths and disability.

one communist party member.

How does being a communist party member have anything to do with it?

It is hard to get your views taken seriously when your predictions earlier in the year are being proven very wrong by current events.

You could be talking about Gupta or you could be talking about Ferguson with his model leading to people saying Sweden should expect up to 85k deaths. They had nowhere near that number.

@herecomesthsun

Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s national clinical director has been very clear that herd immunity may well have a role to play.

Just last week, he said “I am hopeful that population immunity does protect both those individuals and those around them.”

There are many clinically vulnerable people who are essential workers.

Not chronically ill enough to be considered for shielding, but who could die if they caught this virus.

I'm one of them.

If we all shielded, this country would grind to an absolute halt.

Carers, cleaners, specialist non-patient facing operatives, drivers, warehouse operatives, retail workers, nurses, doctors - many of us are blighted by chronic illness and disabilities.

The Great Barrington Declaration has been co-written and signed by some absolute charlatans with no idea about the consequences of their suggestions.

Immunity from this virus is short lived. People who have suffered from it and who were tested for antibodies afterwards have proved this.

There is no herd immunity from this virus.

@Gingernaut

Antibodies are not the only source of immunity. There is growing belief that t-cells may also provide long term immunity

This scaremongering about people who ‘would die’ is just nonsense. Even 80 year olds with multiple underlying conditions are overwhelmingly likely to survive.

Immunity from this virus is short lived. People who have suffered from it and who were tested for antibodies afterwards have proved this

And many respected experts are saying it is not that simple. The immune system isn't that straightforward. If it was the case that immunity was that short lived, millions would have experience reinfection by now. So far, it's an unlucky few who've had Covid a second time. I'm sure we'll see more but it's still going to be small numbers. Sorry, but this is the problem with a bunch of amateurs arguing about this on the internet. People read things and repeat all sorts and pass on inaccurate information.

I dont know what the goal is anymore!! To reduce mumbers of people dying? If that is the case, what about those that are dying from cancer because they are not being seen ? To protect the elderly? Am sure the frail elderly would prefer to see their families if they are in the last two years of life and not die alone.

You could be talking about Gupta or you could be talking about Ferguson with his model leading to people saying Sweden should expect up to 85k deaths. They had nowhere near that number.

It was not his modelling though it was done by some people at a Swedish University (Uppsala) who changed the parameters and used unreliable data.

Neil Ferguson and Imperial did not produce a model for Sweden pointing to 85,000 deaths.
mobile.twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1307693797074178049

T cell production in Covid-19 patients is reduced and impaired

Summary

CD4+ T cells help B cells to produce antibodies and help CD8+ T cells to kill virus-infected cells

One of the dominant cytokines produced by T cells is interferon gamma, a key player in controlling viral infection – see also [41]

Lymphopenia is a main feature of COVID-19 infection, affecting CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells, and is more pronounced in severely ill patients

T cell responses in severely ill patients may be impaired, over-activated, or inappropriate, and further research is required to elucidate this and inform treatment strategies

There is some evidence of cross-reactivity with seasonal/endemic coronaviruses

Emerging studies suggest that all or a majority of people with COVID-19 develop a strong and broad T cell response, both CD4 and CD8, and some have a memory phenotype, which bodes well for potential longer-term immunity

Understanding the roles of different subsets of T cells in protection or pathogenesis is crucial for preventing and treating COVID-19

If you survive, there may be some 'memory phenotype', but this is still being studied.

[quote Ecosse]@herecomesthsun

Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s national clinical director has been very clear that herd immunity may well have a role to play.

Just last week, he said “I am hopeful that population immunity does protect both those individuals and those around them.”[/quote]
That is different from support for the Great Barrington Nonsense.

Herd immunity isn't the answer.

Chris Whitty

"The evidence is that people can get some degree of immunity for a while"

and

"In one internal email from April, Prof Whitty revealed his frustration when discussing a media report which suggested No 10 and their advisors “were absolutely focused on herd immunity”.

The chief medical officer complained he did not think immunity was “a sensible aim of policy” and he had only talked about the concept because he had been answering “questions put to me by ministers”.

In a separate email to the president of the Faculty of Public Health, Prof Whitty insisted: “The government had never pursued a ‘herd immunity strategy’.”

and

"Professor Devi Sridhar, scientific advisor to Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon, said herd immunity was simply not a useful concept in dealing with a pandemic like the coronavirus.

“I would say the majority of scientists are aligned that maximum suppression of this virus is the optimal strategy,” said the chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh." from the Independent.

Also, the WHO has made it clear that its advice is to test, trace and contain covid, and that if this is done successfully in the early stages of the disease entering the country, this offers the best chance of success.

Immunity from this virus is short lived. People who have suffered from it and who were tested for antibodies afterwards have proved this.

No, it hasn't "proved this".
mobile.twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1321197153704923141

www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/health/coronavirus-antibodies-studies.html

I don’t mind listening to. “Experts” opinions and they do seem to vary a lot . As long as they don’t make it political. And she sounded very political to me.

I am sure alternatives are discussed a lot but when you look at practicalities how many experienced surgeons/ doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ lecturers/ business owners are in the group that should be shielded ?

Vague theories are all very well but you need to explain exactly how it’s going to work .

The clinically vulnerable include:-

Anyone over 50

The obese

Those with high blood pressure

Those with Type 2 Diabetes

Anyone suffering from auto-immune diseases and taking immunosuppressants

People under going treatment for cancer

Asian people

Black people

Mixed race people

Those with chronically impaired lung function including asthma, emphysema, COPD and so on

Anyone who has had Covid-19 and is still suffering from chronic after effects

and a multitude of others.

@Gingernaut

Immunity from this virus is short lived. People who have suffered from it and who were tested for antibodies afterwards have proved this.

There is no herd immunity from this virus.

Complete bollocks.

The Government scientists in both Wales and the UK have long-term immunity in their modelling.

I definitely think she has something to say. Just like a PP there were plenty of older people back in March stating that no one would be telling them what to do, they had been around in the War and such.

A lot of elderly people including my late 80’s parents have told me their wishes should they be in hospital with something serious.They feel they have had a good life and are just surviving now (one has dementia and a huge care home cost). Will those people and also the relatives of those people who are doing what they like be screaming for a ventilator if they do catch CV 19. Will they honestly stand aside when someone younger needs treatment. Somehow don’t think so.

For all sorts of reasons this virus hits the elderly far far more seriously then the young. If we need to ring fence care homes, and the elderly then sadly so be it.

Ripping out the future for our young people to allow a 85 year old to be here for a few more months is just wrong.

@hamstersarse

Aren’t vulnerable people shielding anyway, for the most part? No change?

DH is now classed as vulnerable according to the guidelines (over 60) and he'll be carrying on as normal like most over 60s.

Just like a PP there were plenty of older people back in March stating that no one would be telling them what to do, they had been around in the War and such.

Yeah, but they hadn't really. You'd have to be 85+ to really have any memory of the war and even then they'd have, mostly, been children. And do older people saying they'll "take their chances" mean they'll not seek medical help if they need it?

Swedish. I agree. Back in March if Boris had tried to have additional policies and rules for say people over the age of 70 there would have been complete uproar. People saying they were being picked on etc etc.

I would honestly say the same thing I’d say this virus just hit women over the age of 50 (me!).

We must review exactly what we are trying to save here.

I think plenty of older people who deny vulnerability and blithely they don't care about whether Covid carries them off will suddenly discover they do actually care a good deal when they're lying ventilated in a hospital. Very few people truly hold their own lives so cheap that they are not bothered about whether they live or die. It's a delusion and a denial of reality to say you don't care about Covid.

And all the families who said they would rather have quality time now and take the risk will be outraged when the NHS is overwhelmed and an ITU consultant tells them she is very sorry but she can not offer their elderly parent treatment as it is rationed to those with the best chances.

Plus the effect on that consultant and all the other clinicians and NHS workers who are put in impossible positions.

I think we can all manage a few weeks or months of lockdown from time to time to avoid all this. It's difficult. It's not what anyone wants. People will struggle emotionally and financially. But it is not for ever.

Ultimately lives are more important than livelihoods. If you have your life and health the you will live to see economic recovery and better days. If you're dead you won't.

The clinically vulnerable include:- according to NHS

age 70+
lung condition that is not severe
liver, chronic kidney or heart disease
brain/nervous conditions
BMI > 40
pregnant, suppressed immune system, or on steroids

Not as 'everybody' a list as PP said.

Bump. You make some good points. It’s so easy to say you will take your chances and then when there is rationing of say nurses or doctors would your relatives be screaming that they want ‘everything’ for you.

I am POA for both parents and it’s all written down but I strongly suspect my situation is unusual. I do wonder if we pat ourselves on the back time and time again having saved a 90 year old dementia patient.

My DF has said he has a poor life and is just surviving. We have tried to make him as comfortable as possible in his later years but I wouldn’t wish his life on anyone. He tells me he is just waiting....

According to the government website vulnerable is now classed as over 60 much to DH's disgust