The fight back has begun!
From The Guardian:
An international group of scientists has called on governments to overturn their coronavirus strategies and allow young and healthy people to return to normal life while protecting the most vulnerable.
The proposal, drawn up by three researchers but signed by many more, argues for letting the virus spread in low-risk groups in the hope of achieving “herd immunity”, where enough of the population is resistant to the virus to quell the pandemic.
One of the lead authors is my favorite epidemiologist, Prof Sunetra Gupta. My second-favorite, Prof Michael Levett, has counter-signed it. I can't see Ivor Cummins on the list but maybe he'll turn up.
And now to the nay-sayers:
One critic said the “grotesque” plan amounted to a culling of sick and disabled people.
Nothing of the sort:
The authors of the declaration... argue that Covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions are having “devastating effects” on public health by disrupting routine care and harming mental health, with the underprivileged bearing the greatest burden. While many governments are trying to suppress the virus until new treatments and vaccines are found, the trio write that older people and others at risk should be shielded while those in the least danger should “immediately be allowed to resume life as normal”.
No mention of a cull. The general idea is instead of everybody being locked down, the vulnerable are given the support they need (help with shopping and so on) to enable them to lock themselves down, if that is what they wish to do.
Wednesday, 7 October 2020
"Scientists call for Covid herd immunity strategy for young"
My latest blogpost: "Scientists call for Covid herd immunity strategy for young"Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 15:59
Labels: Commonsense, Covid-19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This has been the obvious strategy since April once it became clear that the virus disproportionately affects the old and those with underlying conditions.
The government won't adopt it now because it's too late and they'll have to admit it's all been a mistake.
What Frank said.
From the NHS England's own figures, deaths so far "with" Covid19 and no pre-existing condition are >1400.
"with" Covid19 plus pre-existing condition are ~19,000.
And even the though 69+ age group are by far the majority of the first number, it's still no big deal. And I speak as someone well into that age category.
F, agreed.
VFTS, exactly.
There are two strategies here
1. The Swedish/Brazil "hope for the best" herd immunity strategy - this might or might not work. But it always had a theoretical chance of working and seems to be working.
2. The "suppress infections until a vaccine comes along" strategy which will not happen and cannot ever work.
a) Even if they found a vaccine that works short term, are we all going to take it?
b) If immunity is only a few months after having caught it (the arguments AGAINST the herd immunity strategy), then the same will apply to people who are vaccinated.
So strategy 2 can only ever be delaying the inevitable and can never succeed.
Ergo, given a choice between a strategy that MIGHT work (and appears to be doing so, with the benefit of hindsight) and one that CAN'T POSSIBLY work, surely you choose the former?
1. Wot Frank says.
2. TVfTS - #metoo (but just under the wire at 68
3. The shield the vulnerable/let the young get on with it strategy is already being deployed by people themselves. That's why the civil disobedience aka common sense.
Post a Comment