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?

But lots of people are staying safe and following all the guidelines to the letter. Not going within 2 metres of anyone, wearing a mask whilst outside and wearing it correctly, washing their hands as soon as they get home, carrying hand sanitiser and disinfecting everything they touch, not meeting up with people, not using public transport, not going to any events, pubs, restaurants, not mixing with any children at all, cleaning their house every day with disinfectant. Yet they are still being punished along with all the others who are putting themselves at risk.
Those who have been vigillant and not called on the emergency services deserve to be cared for if need be.
I dont know what the answer is but im sure its not this hakf hearted lock down.
Once again can dimeone explain the scientific medical justufucation for allowing schools yo stay open, when school children are regarded as spreading the virus. Why oh why is the government allowing this when it will not stop the spread of the virus?

@Bathroom12345

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.

I definitely think she has something to say.

She has a lot to say.

Unfortunately, it is often about matters which fall outside her subject of zoology, and it tends to be very different from mainstream medical and scientific opinion.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/

www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19#Clinically

If Professor Gupta believes lockdown won't cure the virus she's probably right, but the magic wand has still not been found so it's all we have.

Not sure why we would care that an epidemiologist believes it has "an unacceptably harmful effect on society, especially the poorest and youngest". This is that thing people do where they think expertise in one area confers great wisdom in another.

If it worked like that really good car mechanics could moonlight as epidemiologists.

emilybrontescorsett it's not that anyone thinks schools are safe. It's that we really don't want to (a) end education and ( b) force all parents of school age children to quit their jobs.

It's a really bad plan, but there doesn't seem to be a better one.

Well obviously herd immunity doesn't work just by natural spread of a disease - even if catching the disease means you are immune for life, you still have to catch it first! And about 95% of the population would need to catch it. And it will never go away as there are always still more susceptible people. No disease has ever gone away just by lots of people catching it. Look at measles for example. Before vaccines it just came back every few years in a new wave and most people caught it during their lifetime. The only diseases to disappear naturally are the really deadly ones that don't spread because people die before they can infect others.

Not sure why we would care that an epidemiologist believes it has "an unacceptably harmful effect on society, especially the poorest and youngest". This is that thing people do where they think expertise in one area confers great wisdom in another.

Not that I necessarily agree with her but I don't think it's outside her area of expertise. Epidemiology is about seeing the bigger picture, rather than focusing purely on, for example, the medical aspects or virology aspects. Weighing up the pros and cons of an intervention in the light of the surrounding circumstances is exactly what they do...

@LastTrainEast

If Professor Gupta believes lockdown won't cure the virus she's probably right, but the magic wand has still not been found so it's all we have.

Not sure why we would care that an epidemiologist believes it has "an unacceptably harmful effect on society, especially the poorest and youngest". This is that thing people do where they think expertise in one area confers great wisdom in another.

If it worked like that really good car mechanics could moonlight as epidemiologists.

Lockdown is to suppress the virus to ensure that those who catch it and people with other diseases can be treated by the NHS.

I saw her interview yesterday on the BBC and thought it was very interesting that she couldn't define who was vulnerable, and also couldn't state how the NHS could increase staff capacity in a few months.

Then again I listened to an interview on the radio later were a male professor of public health, part of sage, couldn't simply say to the interviewer that his remit didn't cover macroeconomics and that's why he couldn't answer certain economic questions.

Apart from showing our government is shit this crisis is also showing people that academics expertise is very specialised.

@RedMarauder

Exactly why the government cannot simply ‘follow the science’ or do whatever SAGE says. SAGE are not experts in economics or education- the government has a huge range of issues to consider.

LastTrainEast I'm fully aware of what you are saying, however let's think logically. Those saying that we should plough ahead with another total lock down and all suffer the dreadful consequences , why are we not then closing schools indefinitely as they are the biggest spreader of the virus?
Logically it cannot be justified. There are posters on here arguing that it's just tough for those who lose their job, their livelihood, their family and often their life. So why not allow people to work, which saves lives e.g. Suicide rates, and make the areas which spread it most, schools, close? You say parents may lose their jobs, yet posters are quite willing to tell other workers to just accept it. Why should one sector suffer for the sake of another? You see the argument here. It's all very well expecting A to suffer whilst B merrily carry on, by what if A say no you Bs suffer and us As will carry on as we were.
Surely one full, total lockdown , is better than many weaker lock downs. People cannot keep living like this. If some people keep infection rates high it's not acceptable for those that are sacrificing the most to keep enduring it. Many people have become ill, lost loved ones and lost more that one job through this. Should we now expect them to lose yet another job when done people are still spreading the virus?
I don't want schools to close but the alternatives are a hard pill to swallow.

She doesn't answer what 'shielding the vulnerable' would look like, though.

Very much agree. By their nature, many vulnerable people need regular intersection with others, and many live with people who go to school or have jobs that can’t be done from home.

It’s also clear that many over 60s who claim we should just shield the vulnerable have no intention of shielding themselves.

I interaction, not intersection!

@LastTrainEast

emilybrontescorsett it's not that anyone thinks schools are safe. It's that we really don't want to (a) end education and ( b) force all parents of school age children to quit their jobs.

It's a really bad plan, but there doesn't seem to be a better one.

We could however follow WHO guidelines and make schools safer, win win.

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.

It's likely that many older people wouldn't be given the option of going on a ventilator anyway, because its an invasive procedure that carries its own costs, and hospitals are using alternative methods where possible. However, they would still need hospital care.

Gupta has been in residence on many major news programmes since March. The idea that her views is being suppressed is laughable, she is routinely trotted out as 'balance' just as Lawson is on climate issues.

The Great Barrington group is connected with ultra right politics in a range of countries and are particularly active in finding fringe view scientists to give a veneer of respectability to schemes which benefit billionaires at the cost of the majority. (I think they are once again supporting Farrage's political ambitions with his new party)

Nothing wrong with her academics, but don't assume her judgement isn't rooted more in her politics. And as PP say - she isn't a sociologist.

When quizzed on how the vulnerable, including those who work or live with key workers can be kept safe she did on one occasion seem to suggest a variation on segregating them en masse - it sticks in my memory like a jolt. That has worked so well in history.
I suspect the reality is alot more mundane - the group advocate letting large numbers of people die and health care be overwhelmed but can't be seen to say that in public.

When asked for examples of societies/diseases where herd immunity has been achieved without a vaccine she lacked the handy list of examples one might expect.

When quizzed on how the vulnerable, including those who work or live with key workers can be kept safe she did on one occasion seem to suggest a variation on segregating them en masse

And this is very much NOT what all the people who think containment measures should be a matter of personal choice are advocating for. Somehow the over 70s are supposed to be free to live their lives but also segregated.

I suspect the reality is alot more mundane - the group advocate letting large numbers of people die and health care be overwhelmed but can't be seen to say that in public.

I agree, but if they genuinely believed that the impact of restrictions would be worse than the impact of letting people catch the virus (more deaths, greater hardship), I think they would be prepared to say this.

Professor Gupta should be careful. There are very powerful vested interests involved.

Professor Gupta should be careful. There are very powerful vested interests involved.

Yeah, lizard people, the Illuminati, the men in black.

Professor Gupta should be careful. There are very powerful vested interests involved.

Careful of what? She hasn't revealed any great truth. It's absolutely fair and right to question any policy that restricts liberties, but talking vaguely about shielding without explaining how that would work doesn't help anyone, least of all any government that has to come up with a workable policy.

@merrymouse

Why is it totally unacceptable to ask those who are vulnerable to stay at home for their own safety but perfectly fine to lock everyone in their homes instead?

Why is it totally unacceptable to ask those who are vulnerable to stay at home for their own safety but perfectly fine to lock everyone in their homes instead?

I think the reasons have already explained on this thread, but anyway:

1). You wouldn't just be asking them to isolate from the outside world, but also from people they are living with. Many people simply can't do that, even if they want to. This article talks about the risks of multi generational living www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3181

2). Many people who are vulnerable require care from other people.

3). Many of the people who proudly support the Great Barrington Declaration are in the age group that is likely require hospital treatment, but they have absolutely no intention of restricting their lives. Shielding is for other people. Why is it unacceptable to ask them to shield? Ask them.

Professor Gupta and the thousands of other Scientists who top of their game make total sense. Lockdowns do not work. I am diabetic and have not been able to screened since March. I am also self employed and had no financial support. Enough already.

My mothers 67 year old neighbour has just died of cancer because she could bot get the treatment she deserved because our hospitals are dedicated to Covid. This is in the South West btw where the hospitals are empty. It's and absolute disgrace

Whereas I have relatives who have been receiving various kinds of hospital treatment as in-patients and out-patients for months.

Obviously different hospitals have different policies, but its not clear why an area in Tier 1 would be facing lock down related restrictions.

Professor Gupta also doesn't explain how vulnerable people could be both shielded and admitted to hospitals that would necessarily be treating large numbers of Covid patients.

@merrymouse

Whereas I have relatives who have been receiving various kinds of hospital treatment as in-patients and out-patients for months.

Obviously different hospitals have different policies, but its not clear why an area in Tier 1 would be facing lock down related restrictions.

Professor Gupta also doesn't explain how vulnerable people could be both shielded and admitted to hospitals that would necessarily be treating large numbers of Covid patients.

She has - she said the NHS should provide more beds and use the Nightingale hospitals. When it was pointed out to her by Reeta Chakrabarti that one of the problems was adequate staffing, she didn't offer a solution for that.

Unfortunately the interviewers aren't doing a good job as they fail to push her on this point and the points others have mentioned here.

I should add I'm not neutral due to having a family member who until just before the pandemic worked sorting out staffing for a few NHS trusts, plus other family members and close friends who were on lists drawn up to go work in Covid wards if they got over whelmed.