Coronavirus and herd immunity: Best interview I've seen

[primeria]

This Newsnight interview with a professor from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine makes a lot of sense:

Politics aside (and no, I didn't vote for them), I do think the Government's measured approach is the right one.

But the government haven't even recommended self isolation for vulnerable groups yet, so if his employer refused he had to choose between his job and isolating himself properly.There are great many older and vulnerable people who are not getting any advice or support to isolate themselves.

Yes, I'd tend to agree with that. But of course you're also vulnerable to catching it in your own home from the people looking after you.

But plenty of ill and vulnerable people don't need "looking after in their own homes". My husband runs marathons - he's still vulnerable as far as coronavirus is concerned.

More needs to be done, legally, to facilitate vulnerable groups being able to self isolate should they wish to if this is the approach the government are taking.

Anyone wonder if its so they can blame the most vulnerable for choosing not to self isolate

taken from another thread. its a very interesting read, including the comments.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/03/11/there-is-a-choice-on-coronavirus-we-can-save-people-or-the-economy-but-not-both-and-the-government-is-choosing-the-economy/?fbclid=IwAR2EZ9HA1xu1dxllAQVctdKRVNjO4z3uxzXtJvDq7daySkXXXxmNz-F4uhE

But plenty of ill and vulnerable people don't need "looking after in their own homes". My husband runs marathons - he's still vulnerable as far as coronavirus is concerned.

That's beside the point - he's vulnerable from the people he lives with whether they're looking after him or not.

I think we're actually agreeing with each other on your original point though.

here is another interesting read.

www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2020/03/covid-19-china.page

That's beside the point - he's vulnerable from the people he lives with whether they're looking after him or not.

I agree. Which is why it would be really helpful if the government could at least advise that vulnerable individuals and their families should self-isolate. That would allow people to keep their kids off-school and work from home without penalty.

It's all very well building heard immunity but not if you do nothing to protect vulnerable individuals at the same time.

there-is-a-choice-on-coronavirus-we-can-save-people-or-the-economy-but-not-both-and-the-government-is-choosing-the-economy

Now the disease is spreading, there isn't any choice - most people are going to get it whether we close schools and cancel events or not - the only thing we have any control over is the pace that it happens. Too quickly and our NHS collapses, too slowly and our economy collapses (which will ultimately cause the NHS to collapse too). Somewhere in the middle not only keeps the economy ticking over, it means we get the protective herd immunity quicker.

Why do people keep on quoting sars.

It is SARS-COV-2.

Covid-19 is a person with symptoms / google it

Actually only around 20% of china got it. Gosh how did they do that? lock down and restriction of movement.

Yes. Their military sealed the region and started building new hospitals. They churned out testing kits and picked up anyone with syptoms very quickly. Travel across the country is shut down. As a result the virus didn't penetrate the rest of the country like it's doing in Europe.

1. We could not manage the same effect. We travel far more so the virus was not confined to one region. We don't have the man power or the laws to support that level of state action.

1. Lets say we did try something similar: what happens when the travel restrictions lift? Sooner or later the same numbers will get the disease.

Would all that enormous economic and human cost actually achieve any saved lives compared to the UK's current strategy?

Well cattle need a new vaccine yearly so I’m calling bull Sht. Look it up.

primeria You didn't read it did you.
or the other one?.

are you here just for propaganda purposes?

Smilethoyourheartisbreaking donquixotedelamancha

I agree we are not in position same position as china to throw resources at it.

and the best course of action is to slow and flatten the peak.

problem is what our government is doing is speeding it up. it will peak fast and very high. not slow and long as they are leading us to believe.

and primeria there is still a choice to slow it, as per both articles.

Great link. Thanks OP for sharing

Great video, thanks for sharing

well that's the trouble with the line of let it spread to everyone right now, and no testing outside of hospitals, so we don't know were in our communities is rife.

I probably won't be here to see if it works or not.

I said on another thread I could self isolate now, but I would lose my job and income. but I could do it. My DH cannot self isolate, so I am buggered. But I have a lot insurance so DC and DH will be fine I'm sure. I also need my income as my insurance is quite expensive.

So yeah, I'm so glad as country we are gambling with my life on a chance there is herd immunity at the end. Instead of following the World health organisation advice and guidance.

Not sure whether we should be cancelling a family surprise party. Due to take place in a pub in London this weekend, for a special birthday.
A lot of work and planning has gone into it- and after all public events are not being cancelled, but I still feel uneasy that we are being irresponsible

This herd immunity business is bullshit. Even if it’s true that it’s possible with this virus (dubious) if they get a vaccine developed quickly for this (there is serious fast tracking going on) then thousands of lives here in Britain will have been needlessly sacrificed.

The point is it could have been slowed so the NHS could treat the sick and elderly humanely.

Instead the NHS has closed its doors literally.

I’m still calling bullshit.

Someone said that people must have got immunity to the Spanish flu.

No sometimes you just get lucky!

No, he's saying separate the vulnerable so they are safe

What he's saying is that there is no way of stopping most people (80-90%) from getting it, so they are trying to lower the death rate

For those that are making this claim, what measures do you think the government are taking to reduce the death rate/separate the vulnerable? Aside from telling over 70s not to go on cruises, he didn't announce any real delaying measures and certainly no separation - in fact the government advisers specifically suggested against trying to cut down on unnecessary visits to older people in case they get lonely.

Nobody's denying that flattening the curve/herd immunity is a good goal, but there's a disconnect between the aim and the seeming lack of any action to achieve that aim