By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Ok, so watching the newsnight interview (thx whoever suggested watching it) and it seems we are taking the approach of wanting the population to develop immunity.
A few thoughts / questions.
Is this actually our policy or was it just an opinion from an informed advisor?
If CV could kill you, why does it matter if you get it now or in say the autumn?
If there is an overall benefit from herd immunity, why are we emcouraging people of wash hands etc. We should surely be solely nessaging to isolate the vulnerable and encouraging preventative measures for those in contact with the vulnerable? (If we want herd immunity)
Context. We are losing our sh!t over 590 cases. We need 36 million cases for herd immunity. And 800,000 plus people will die
For Herd Immunity to work we need 36 million cases and even then, Doctors don’t think it will work. You need some immunity in the population for it to work.
Context. We are losing our sh!t over 590 cases. We need 36 million cases for herd immunity. And 800,000 plus people will die
For Herd Immunity to work we need 36 million cases and even then, Doctors don’t think it will work. You need some immunity in the population for it to work.
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
Interesting attempt to summarise the position here, regarding balancing conflicting needs. There's a link to a Times piece at the bottom for those who can get past the paywall
I've spent past day chatting to virologists and epidemiologists about the UK policy on #Covid_19
I think it's important to get across both the plurality of views and the uncertainty.
If you're about to post a strong opinion, bear in mind few of them express such clarity 1/x
Interesting attempt to summarise the position here, regarding balancing conflicting needs. There's a link to a Times piece at the bottom for those who can get past the paywall
I've spent past day chatting to virologists and epidemiologists about the UK policy on #Covid_19
I think it's important to get across both the plurality of views and the uncertainty.
If you're about to post a strong opinion, bear in mind few of them express such clarity 1/x
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
Thing is though if you were being extremely cynical you would say that if the virus spread through everyone then obviously it's going to hit the weakest and illest in our society the hardest and some will unfortunately pass away as they will not be able to fight it off.
However by the time it's gone through everyone and herd immunity has been achieved, there will be far less ill and weak in society as they would have already have passed away, so the ones who are still alive are going to be far healthier and either immune or effected less by it.
There was some quack on the tube earlier though that was suggesting to fellow passengers that the whole thing could work in the governments favour long term as it might reduce the numbers requiring social care if the virus killed them.....people didn't take too kindly to that
Thing is though if you were being extremely cynical you would say that if the virus spread through everyone then obviously it's going to hit the weakest and illest in our society the hardest and some will unfortunately pass away as they will not be able to fight it off.
However by the time it's gone through everyone and herd immunity has been achieved, there will be far less ill and weak in society as they would have already have passed away, so the ones who are still alive are going to be far healthier and either immune or effected less by it.
There was some quack on the tube earlier though that was suggesting to fellow passengers that the whole thing could work in the governments favour long term as it might reduce the numbers requiring social care if the virus killed them.....people didn't take too kindly to that
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 11:43]
He has a point. Let's be honest, would anyone be 100% confident that that hasn't crossed the mind of Johnson and Cummings? They don't strike me as caring much about people.
Child hurling in bathrooms is not recommended. They don't fly very far, for a start.
Child howling on the other hand ... my very first memory is of sitting on a bathroom stool (age 2 I was later told) howling my head off because parents had gone out for the evening, leaving us with some poor baby-sitter!
He has a point. Let's be honest, would anyone be 100% confident that that hasn't crossed the mind of Johnson and Cummings? They don't strike me as caring much about people.
Nothing was really announced about Social Care in the budget either, come to think of it.
If they are really looking at the cash that they will save from social care and pensions etc then that is disgusting, although it's killing their core vote off in some respects.
Saying that though, the Tory party will probbably paint themselves as victims in all of this and when all of the Brexit impact comes further down the line they'll blame that on the virus too.
The gullable public will swallow it no doubt and the Tories will campaign for the next election on the victims of circumstance card blaming everyone else. As a Tory supporter I know once said, 'If we can make the public blame someone else, they're not blaming us'
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
I think many elderly and/or with underlying conditions are already doing this; I'm certainly limiting my usual activites to some extent (albeit not on total lock-down yet).
In this situation where nobody really knows for sure what's *actually* best for all, there's a great deal to be said for listening to your own instincts I think - we are animals too, and we're given instinct for a reason. And only individuals can know "where they're at" with their bodies, local conditions (better out in rural areas you'd expect).
However, the unpalatable fact is that for many elderly with pre-existing respiratory and/or auto-immune health problems who always get "chesty" after any old cold, this is going to inevitably be very "challenging", assuming that most people will get Covid-19 in the end, just as they get any cold going once it's "out there". The main thing this virus attacks is the lungs, with pneumonia followed by bacteril pneumonia if you're unlucky.
Thing is though if you were being extremely cynical you would say that if the virus spread through everyone then obviously it's going to hit the weakest and illest in our society the hardest and some will unfortunately pass away as they will not be able to fight it off.
However by the time it's gone through everyone and herd immunity has been achieved, there will be far less ill and weak in society as they would have already have passed away, so the ones who are still alive are going to be far healthier and either immune or effected less by it.
There was some quack on the tube earlier though that was suggesting to fellow passengers that the whole thing could work in the governments favour long term as it might reduce the numbers requiring social care if the virus killed them.....people didn't take too kindly to that
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 11:43]
Re your first two paras - that is simply a matter of nature taking its course as normal.
It has crossed my mind that given the way humans have been treating the planet, climate change etc., this could be nature's way of trying to balance the scales a bit - I don't mean in a "knowing" kind of way employing intelligence or strategy, but just in a biological way.
Re your first two paras - that is simply a matter of nature taking its course as normal.
It has crossed my mind that given the way humans have been treating the planet, climate change etc., this could be nature's way of trying to balance the scales a bit - I don't mean in a "knowing" kind of way employing intelligence or strategy, but just in a biological way.
Sure it is indeed a matter of nature taking it's course, but going for a herd immunity tactic is encouraging it and as stated, this tactic also has the potential to assist with another issue that the government would quite like to deal with.
It feels wrong to use the word 'opportunity' in connection with the virus, but as the guy on the tube said this morning, it does present a circumstance where a new problem in society might help tackle the effects of an existing one.
Interesting attempt to summarise the position here, regarding balancing conflicting needs. There's a link to a Times piece at the bottom for those who can get past the paywall
I've spent past day chatting to virologists and epidemiologists about the UK policy on #Covid_19
I think it's important to get across both the plurality of views and the uncertainty.
If you're about to post a strong opinion, bear in mind few of them express such clarity 1/x
I'm just basically repeating what they said yesterday in the press conference, probably in a poor way.
I'm in no real position to criticise them, none of us are really. From other (non-government) sources I've read have basically said there is no "correct" way of doing this, especially when we know relatively little about this virus.
That said, even in my local paper there are two opposing views from the same university. One, a professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases, is saying it's sensible and another, professor of molecular virology, is saying that because most people present with just cold symptoms, self isolation should be further spread.
Just watched a dude on the news who was looking at the stats which if taken on face value suggest that the pathway of this may be different for the UK than Italy. With Italy there was a really massive spike in cases which suggested that it was in the Italian community and spreading (northern bit anyway) before anything was done. By comparison the UK has seen a steady climb. It’s as notable how regional is is in Italy too.
My view is that if the government are taking advice, which they clearly are, this is the best way as opposed to the politicking that the NS did yesterday or that bitter stick insect Jeremy Hunt. But who knows, we are dealing with the unknown.
And if they want herd immunity then it makes more sense to allow it to spread but to isolate those at most risk. In fact you'd even want to encourage it being contracted in the young and healthy who shouldn't need hospital treatment, but you'd want older people and those with underlying health conditions to be on lockdown. That's not what is being done though, the strategy seems a bit confused to me.
That's the illuminati for you!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
He has a point. Let's be honest, would anyone be 100% confident that that hasn't crossed the mind of Johnson and Cummings? They don't strike me as caring much about people.
You really believe that the government to some degree then has considered using this crisis to kill off hundreds of thousands if not perhaps even the low millions of it's own citizens in order to save money?
You really believe that the government to some degree then has considered using this crisis to kill off hundreds of thousands if not perhaps even the low millions of it's own citizens in order to save money?
I think I've answered that in the post you've quoted.
It's more of a case that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has crossed Johnson and Cummings' mind that it might not be worth sinking lots of resources into measures that might further tank the economy in order to save people who are already costing the state as it is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that has crossed their minds.
It's more of a case that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has crossed Johnson and Cummings' mind that it might not be worth sinking lots of resources into measures that might further tank the economy in order to save people who are already costing the state as it is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that has crossed their minds.
Tory core vote = the elderly. You haven’t thought this one through have you Herbie?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
. 
