It is very easy to believe that the UK government is continuing with the policy of herd immunity that, appears to me, to have been its strategy throughout the coronavirus crisis.
Others clearly think so too. Watch Mike Ryan of the World Health Organisation discuss this in the link in this tweet. He is devastating in it, and the ethics behind it, which he eviscerates.
No wonder Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are taking a different tack. They have governments that care. That's a pretty fundamental difference. And no wonder people there are asking what the point of the Union is when Westminster is simply hanging us out to die, and it's all going to be our fault for not being alert.
https://twitter.com/vincentmccann4/status/1259923575391297536?s=21
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This will not age well, but people objecting to this strategy should have been shouting in 2011 and 2017 when the government published Pandemic Preparedness Strategies which featured herd immunity as beneficial when no vaccine existed, or vaccines were limited.
You people on the far right really do come up with the biggest load of nonsense as excuses, don’t you?
It’s our fault for not spotting what the government should have been doing?
Did you not notice the fuss we made about NHS failing, me included?
Stratford Marks says:
“…..This will not age well, but people objecting to this strategy should have been shouting in 2011 and 2017 when……”
Are you suggesting you think the strategy adequate, then. “Let it rip and the devil take the hindmost “? Is that a policy? I think it’s the absence of policy.
I’ve always considered it the job of government to create social order not to let chaos reign.
Quite so
Mr Marks,
In 2011 Britain had deliberately built up an £831m stock of new, pristine PPE that was not buried under multiple layers of out-of-date stickers; scientfific advice under the Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King that was independent from Government, could speak out, and could look to a well established, local public health organisation structure capable of fighting a pandemic. All of this; allof it was systematically dismantled, not maintained, not repaired, or simply left to rot; in the name of the Government’s devout commitment to an idea of Conservativism’s responsibility to neoliberal orthodoxy. A series of Conservative Governments thus calculatedly chose austerity, out of pure ideology, and before its responsibility for the security of the the British people and the State.
Inconvenient, factual but counter-ideological evidence would be that last thing likely to be reported by Conservative Governments, and they didn’t. For example it would be quite difficult to spot the Exercise Cygnus results in 2016 being shouted from the rooftops, because the Government is very selective in what it publishes. It preferred to reject the urgent advice by Cygnus to reinvest in pandemic preparation, and insted opted for cheap desk research instead, and kick the awkward facts into the long grass. It ignored the advice in science based reports on the high likelihood of a corona type ‘flu’ pandemic as the highest security risk the UK faced over the last few years. ‘Testing’ finally disappeared altogether as an effective, usable UK industry in a pandemic emergency. That, sir is Conservative Government in action.
The Government now exploits a complacent and grovelling neoliberal media that it uses to set the national political agenda; an essentially shoddy process that is only now being noticed by the public (and a media finally scared of being ‘found out’); for the longstanding cynical and despicable technique that it is. Neoliberal Government is not there to govern. Neoliberal government doesn’t believe in action, it believes PR and propaganda is the sole purpose of Government; influencing the public to believe that whatever happens, it happens for the best in this best of all possible British worlds. Only markets do anything, only markets work, only markets are entitled (to everything that is going); and when they don’t work? Who could have known? Not me guv. You are on your own; on your bike.
Conservative Government has created a desert and called it austerity.
Spot on
Most cogent comment I’ve read on here for a long time.
Lots of ‘bloopers’ in my comment; apologies for the clumsy lack of self-editing. Written in too much haste; now repented at the cost of more time! I just wished to add that Dr Michael Ryan , WHO made a passionate statement in the clip supllied above, from which I would take this rallying cry for those who actually wish to live in a compassionate and civilised society:
“no one is safe until everyone is safe”.
I hope the Scottish government uses it. It is a lot better than ‘Stay alert’, which could mean anything at all; which is, of course its multi-faceted, pointing-in-every-direction-at-once purpose.
I call BS
“Pandemic Preparedness Strategies which featured herd immunity as beneficial”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf
pp 43-44
“4.46 CEAPI has previously considered the use and prioritisation of vaccine. They concluded that the most appropriate course of action would depend on the particular UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 circumstances, including what could be achieved with the amount of vaccine available at the time, and this remains their view following the experience of the H1N1 (2009) influenza pandemic. If it is not possible to limit the spread by achieving herd immunity, where so many people are immune that the disease cannot continue to infect people to maintain itself in the population, it is important to reduce the impact of the pandemic. “
I’ve, obviously, got this all wrong. As far as I can see, Herd immunity is the only way that we’re going to ‘defeat’ this virus.
As we don’t have an innate immunity, we’re going to have to acquire it – either via enough of us getting infected naturally (unacceptable due to the appalling loss of life); or enough of us being vaccinated, etc.
The formula used, by those expert in these matters, to work out the % of the population needed to acquire immunity for Herd Immunity to take effect is: (R0 – 1)/R0. If the R0 of this virus is 2.7 (the lowest estimate I can find) then the figure is 63% – obviously higher if the R0 is higher.
If Herd Immunity (hopefully acquired via vaccination, etc.) is not the answer, then what is?
Cheers
So 63% of us have to get it
And right now the death rate according to Italian data now out is way higher than previously thought – well over 1%.
You can work out the rest
And you’re happy to just let it rip, which is the policy that is being criticised?
I don’t know why you feel the need to ‘straw man’ me.
I neither said, nor implied, that I believed that acquiring Herd Immunity via letting this virus ‘rip’ was a good idea – in fact I wrote that such a course was “unacceptable due to the appalling loss of life“.
Guesstimates of CFR ‘s, in the studies I have read, range from 0.25% to 1.2%; which would result in a minimum of approx. 88000 deaths in the U.K. calculated using the best case scenario (50% are asymptotic; 0.25% CFR); a figure that is totally unacceptable to me (as is the present figure).
Cheers
I apologise if I misread you
And as I have noted – we cannot endorse herd immunity when your optimistic assumptions (and with 50,000 excess deaths now they are wildly low) suggest massive numbers of excess deaths
And I stress that I know there is a school of epidemiology that says a) the deaths will be much lower and b) we are making a fuss over nothing c) the excess death are increased by lockdown
“If Herd Immunity…is not the answer, then what is?”
It’s a simple enough question. Why don’t you give us your answer?
Watch that video, I suggest
Mike Ryan says it better than me
well this is it in a nutshell isn’t it Richard,
they’re content to throw 1% of the population under the bus just to allow BAU,
the lack of any significant restriction of international travel so far shows their attitude,
commercial aviation didn’t drop 70% because F,UK,US, govt’s were grounding planes, it was because passengers didn’t want to get on them,
the transatlantic lockdowns happened due to public pressure, not govt action, they only made the lockdowns official when a significant proportion of the public were already taking their own measures spontaneously,
it’s quite telling that the USG is quite open about the fact that the Donald & Mike ‘Rapture Boy’ Pence are tested daily along with their immediate contacts so as to be shielded from the herd,
there is the herd and then there are the herders, most of us are in the herd, only the chosen few are selected for the VIP enclosure.
Good luck herd….
Mr Reid,
Unfortunately you haven’t read a word I have written.
“In order that we ‘tame’ this virus, a sufficient number of us have to acquire immunity (aka Herd Immunity)”
That is the proposition I consider to be unproved for COVID-19, and was the issue I thought I was challenging. It is at least possible that a sufficient number will not acquire immunity from this mutating and adapting pathogen, at least for a very considerable prospective period. We simply do not know, there is insufficient scientific knowledge to predict the outcome with confidence, and I consider the risks outweigh the advantages of following policy based on this proposition. Longer term prospects may change, but a very cautious exit from lockdown seems wise; the weaknesses of your argument are compounded by the failures of Government over the handling of the pandemic (more in terms of long term planning than recent errors); but which you appear simply to discount.
I still await a robust rebuttal of my case. Perhaps, like the virus may be doing, you can adapt your argument to changing circumstances.
Cheers
Mr Reid,
Here is what NOAH writes about herd immunity:
“Herd immunity is the protection offered to a wider community of animals, pets or farm animals, when a sufficiently high proportion of individual animals are vaccinated, reducing the prevalence of disease and numbers of susceptible individuals in an area. An unfortunate example of what can happen when herd immunity diminishes were the outbreaks of measles in the UK in recent years, which are thought to be due to reduced numbers of children being vaccinated ”
1) We do not have a vaccine
2) We have very limited capacity for testing, when the ‘herd’ is 65m+; and we have been hampered by no testing industry, insufficient reagents, and trying to create a testing industry from scratch, in an emergency, on the hoof; with no plan.
3) Infrastructure for fighting pandemics at the critical local level, PPE stocks, ventilators, ICU capacity, care home operations as part of public health operations etc., have been totally dismantled or cut to pieces over ten years of austerity.
What I see is a failed Government administration in which I have little confidence. As far as I can see their approach is something like this: in spite of the difficulties and blunders, the high death rate and late start it is neverthless all fine, because we are British and this is just like Dunkirk. Look what we have achieved in spite of everything.
This is no way to run a country. Period. This is where we are. Somehow implementing your ‘herd immunity’ idea when we have no vaccine and our testing is not up to it doesn’t look like an attractive option. We have no easy way out; but putting lives first and managing our situation with extreme caution seems much more sound to me; especially if your strategy goes wrong (you do not know, and your case is weak); the consequences of failure are potentially catastrophic.
As some of the excellent comments in this thread suggest, along with supporting evidential sources, I left out of the problem with ‘herd immunity’ the fact that if there is no vaccine that leaves only the 63% will be protected. 37% remain at risk. Only the 63% are not much protected where the virus mutates; as of course in the case of corona viruses (RNA not DNA), they will mutate much faster than living organisms. So the 63% reamin at risk, and as some ‘second wave’ evidence suggests, the mutations could prove more difficult. I really think a very good justification of the ‘herd immunity’ justiification is still required to be made.
I remain unconvinced, and am particularly worried by its seductive power to lull policy makers into thinking that it offers a fast track back to ‘business-as-usual’ for the economy, when I suspect it is a siren song, that could dash the economy on the rocks of a second wave, at catastrophic cost of life and treasure, and a very tough way out of the second lockdown to stop a third wave …….
I await a persuasive rebuttal of my argument.
Mr Warren
You may write as many essays as you like; but that won’t change the fact that you, obviously, haven’t read a word that I have written.
At no time have I indicated, nor implied, that I support Boris’s handling of the terrible pandemic we are facing; how you could infer such is beyond me.
In order that we ‘tame’ this virus, a sufficient number of us have to acquire immunity (aka Herd Immunity) – your, or my, ‘feelings’ about our present government don’t change that fact. As I see it: we have to acquire Herd Immunity either via a vaccine (my preference) or via community infection, with the resultant awful death toll, Boris’s, alleged, preference.
Cheers
Herd immunity doesn’t work that way. Herd immunity is based on a large enough percentage of the population having immunity to stop a /new/ case of the disease from being able to achieve an effective reproduction rate greater than one – i.e., for a disease that has an R0 of 5, the population needs to have enough immunity that of those 5 people potentially infected by this new case, at most one of them is vulnerable. For an R0 of 5 that means 80% immunisation rates; for an R0 of 20 (roughly what we see with measles) that means 95%, for an R0 of 2 that means 50%.
The problem is, in the middle of an epidemic you don’t have /one/ new case in a population already having that level of immunity, you have enormous numbers. If you follow a “let it rip” lack-of-policy then by the time you reach the point where your “herd immunity” target percentage is reached, you have a large population of infectious people out there spreading the disease further. That large population of infectious cases will proceed to spread the disease further, and even if the reproduction rate drops to, say, 0.9 at this point, you have /each individual/ in that large infectious population causing 0.9 more cases – if you start with a million infectious people at this point, the next “generation” will be 900,000, then 810,000, and so forth. The epidemic is burning itself out at this point, but it’s got enough momentum to burn through a lot more people than the “herd immunity” level, and a bit of mathematical modelling will show that for an R0 greater than around 2 that momentum will result in 100% of the population being infected.
What you might call “naturally acquired” herd immunity would help us with the /next/ outbreak, but not with this one. For this initial outbreak, our only options are a vaccine, or a hard-line policy of eradication.
See this excellent blog post (by a medical statistician, not an epidemiologist, but still excellent) for more discussion: https://faustusnotes.com/2020/05/08/why-the-uk-governments-herd-immunity-strategy-for-coronavirus-was-so-incredibly-stupid/
Excellent article
Thanks
Thank you to Mr Fowler, Mr Wild, Mz Foley and ‘Tony B’.
I do not claim expertise in virology or epidemiological statistics, but I expect to be able to understand what we are all trying to achieve with the enormous commitment to this pandemic being made by the public, and to have confidence: a) that there is a coherent plan, and b) that it has a high probablitiy of success, or at least that failure does not lead to catastrophe. I think from slightly different perspectives the commenters above have provided valuable supporting evidence that ‘herd immunity’ (even shorn of the Johnson Government’s eccentricities) may have serious problems as a strategy.
I have selected Mr Fowler’s closing peroration here because I think it moves to the crucial issue of the policy consequences that flow from the analysis: “For this initial outbreak, our only options are a vaccine, or a hard-line policy of eradication”.
Failing a vaccine for some considerable time, and in order to protect the unvaccinated for as long as necessary, a policy of eradication appears to me to be essential. This means a very long slow, deeply planned (down to the local level, with infrastructure and PPE to match) exit from lockdown; combined with a comprehensive, large scale and very precisely planned and targeted process of ‘test, trace, isolate’; which I believe is what the WHO has always proposed. I would add to this the views of Professor Allyson Pollock, Director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science, who has emphasised the need for test, trace, isolate and the deeper problems of achieving it in a Guardian article of 26th April (written with a Research associate at the University, Peter Roderick), titled ‘To tackle this virus, local public health teams need to take back control’: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/to-tackle-this-virus-local-public-health-teams-need-to-take-back-control
Thank you.
Thank you
What utter rubbish. The English government doesn’t care? It cares about the devastating impact on mental health from your business going bust under your feet and you having no money, the impact on vulnerable children and families, cancer treatments that have been suspended, etc, etc. There is no point having everyone well if there is no work and no money – the high streets will be wastelands, there will be no pubs left in the country, our economy will be destroyed.
This virus is not going away. The likelihood of a vaccine any time soon is low. We don’t have a choice but to keep calm and carry on – being alert to social distancing.
And let people die?
Is that what you’re saying?
Because what else do you mean?
Richard Murphy clearly has no experience of mental illness within the family. We cannot just look at Covid-19 in isolation. Whilst any death is extremely sad, there is a lot worse than dying of an illness – along with many others in the same boat.
Try visualizing the devastating effect of one family member committing suicide because they have been pushed over the edge. The conflicting emotions of guilt, anger, hurt and sorrow, plus the ever present “if only’s”, never really leave you and can last a lifetime. TRY IT!
There is a bigger picture to consider here – mental health, unemployment, domestic and child abuse, cancer cases which haven’t been caught early enough, destruction of people’s livelihoods, hospitality industries, tourism industries, town centres, etc, etc. The ripples go on and on – every day you can hear of the impact on another area that you hadn’t previously thought of.
This is a pandemic. You cannot keep everyone safe without destroying many other things. Yes, some people will die. That’s the nature of the beast.
It is obvious that you have suffered that pain
I am really sorry
But let me assure you that I am very, very familiar with issues concerning mental ill health. Your assumption is wildly wide of the mark
And if you read what I had been saying correctly you would have realised I am massively concerned about the ‘collateral’ damage of the government’s policies, which are callous because of their indifference
Of course some people will die
I know that
I mourn it
But not for one second does that mean we should be indifferent to other concerns and I am staggered that you think I am
p.s.
Yes, to achieve Herd Immunity (if the R0 of SARS CoV2 is as low as 2.7 – we can pray) 63% of us have to be ‘infected’. But, as I wrote, we can be ‘infected’ artificially – via a vaccine or other method.
Cheers
But you have no idea when or how that will happen
And in the meantime that policy is recklessly irresponsible
You cannot ethically say that just because we will get there we must do so asap
Herd Immunity is the only answer – ‘Johnson’s Herd Immunity’, as in his preferred path to achieving it, certainly isn’t.
For the record: I believe that any death due to this virus is a tragedy – let alone the resultant number (my low ball guesstimate of 85000, in the U.K) if it’s let rip.
Let’s hope that a vaccine(s) is developed soon – if not for our sake, then for the tens of millions who will die once the virus takes hold in the less developed countries.
Cheers
Thanks for the link. Few democratically elected governments in the world have empathetic leadership; Jacinda Ardern being one notable exception. Sociopathy (like racism) lurks below the surface. Without fully understanding its implications, voters are probably quite supportive of sacrificing other people’s lives (i.e. not their own or those of their loved ones) for the ‘greater good’ of society. At least with dictatorships you know what it says on the tin!
For anyone time-constrained that particular topic starts at around #43.28.
“Governments that care” pretty much means putting in isolation and social distancing policies to fend off or perhaps just delay the deaths of those who are destined to die from Covid 19. Of course we don’t exactly know who the vulnerable are other than using prior conditions and age as guide. Is it practical to follow this strategy until a vaccine is found? This could be years. Does society want to follow this strategy for years?.. there are many actions of humans which statistically are guaranteed to cause death. Driving a car is an obvious example. We could avoid such deaths if we banned motorised vehicles. Drowning could be avoided if we banned all swimming and all forms of sea travel and leisure activities on the water. These sound silly solutions to deaths which otherwise are statistically guaranteed. Well Covid 19 and social distancing falls into the same kind of discussion.I don’t have the answer incidentally but I understand fully the dilemma Governments and society face and I am not certain minimising the number of deaths at all costs is the correct solution.
I am aware that some epidemiologists think we should let this run riot for the reasons you note
Would you say so if you were a politician?
I have no answer. But I think a comparison with statistically guaranteed fatalities (driving, swimming and many many more) is a valid comparison. I really don’t think it is practical to socially distance our entire society until a vaccine is found. Like I say I appreciate the dilemma governments around the world face and I am pleased not to be a politician. But a politician is not going to ban driving, swimming, drinking, cycling etc etc where fatalities are guaranteed. How can they deny indefinite access to family and friends and the ability to earn a living?
If we do nothing 500,000 people will die early (all deaths are early as well die eventually)
I think the evidence is high – I know some disagree
Is that something society will tolerate?
Would anyone suggest we get ‘herd immunity’ to typhoid, polio, scarlet fever, cholera or similar by ‘just catching it’? I don’t think so. For some reason we all seem very defeatist in the UK. Nothing can be done so lets just catch it – we are too poor, too disorganised and too incompetent, to paraphrase what is usually said by Brit Nats about Scotland.
My Dad was a farmer so as the WHO expert said herd immunity is a simple economic calculation – how many animals will you lose (and thus their value) versus the cost of the vet and medications. If it is going to cost too much you shoot the infected animals and burn the bodies.
Is that really how we think we should treat our families, relatives and friends? Better start praying you are not one of those that draw the short straw!
Indeed
typhoid – a bacteria, not a virus
polio – a virus, spread through fecal matter to a large extent, vaccines exist and can confer herd immunity
scarlet fever – a bacteria, not a virus
cholera – a bacteria not a virus
Onto Sars-Cov-2 : this is animal RNA. It’s not something which the immune system which is often in a fight against itself anyway is going to be immediately cool about seeing an attenuated or mashed up version of. A vaccine that has been developed and meets the criteria for being safe which would mean on best estimates it kills less than 1 in 260 of the people it is given to, is at least a year and a half away.
Sorry, herd immunity with adults behaving responsibly and shielding the most vulnerable, is the way to go here. And please wash your hands in still soapy water every time you enter or leave a building with the facilities to do so. If you cop an initial load of say 200 virons you are in far better shape than someone who copped a load of say 2000 virons such as what probably happened to our host. And if you can persuade your MP or Mayor to make washing at airports or other transport hubs where there are facilities to make this possible, please do so.
Those first two responses on this blog just leave me gasping with incredulity.
What is it that some people cannot hear – or if they do hear, credit?
“Herd immunity” is a term created to describe “herds” – mainly of domesticated animals. It is an observation of what happens with new diseases interacting with “herds”. It has a use in human epidemiology only as a means of considering the proportion of a human population, which requires to be treated with an effective and safe vaccine in order to create an effect analogous to the results observable in animal “herds” adjustment to a new disease.
The interlocking chaos of the policies and statements of Johnson’s extreme Tory, Westminster government seem unable to be explained now by anything else than an undeclared willingness to invite mass infection while pretending to be doing something – opaque/unclear/incoherent – else. The two monstrously large ‘tells’ are surely
(a) the failure of this particular, Brexitanian government to do anything to control, medically, their much trumpeted “Borders” – even now postponing any action (air only? – ports as well?) until June – and
(b) the failure to work as concentratedly on tracing and isolating as on increasing testing – on which they cannot even tell the same version of the truth two days running. On the tracing issue, it is also totally revealing that while Gove assures us that they are hastening to recruit 50,000 customs staff for the deliberatly created chaos of their WTO Brexit from 1st January 2021, they are also only recruiting 18,000 ‘tracers’ of whom a mere 3,000 are not call centre staff; the recommended level for this operation has been set, by the oft boasted ‘science’, at 50,000
The conclusion that, to Johnson’s government and the economic interests it thinks it represents, the ‘U’ K’s working population are no more than a useful ‘herd’ now seems inescapable.
I agree
@Nigel Mace
You have, obviously, chosen to misread my post – the 2nd one on here.
Cheers
I read it as Richard also first did – and was more than happy to read your clarification, which only reached the published blog long after I had sent my post. All best 🙂
Perhaps this comment from a text by James Mensch discussing the moral stance of the Nazis is illuminating:
“The sense that something is wrong with the standpoint assumed by those who would make such decisions can be expressed in terms of the contradiction it implies. Formally, the contradiction concerns the concepts of ground and grounded. It involves decision makers, situated within the human framework and, hence, grounded in humanity and its relations, assuming the position of a ground of humanity. Any group that decides what humanity should be–i.e., decides not just its future, but on the “nature” of the humanity that is to have a future–makes a decision whose justification cannot be drawn from the existing human framework. The formal contradiction, then, is between being grounded by such framework and assuming a position whose justification necessarily stands outside of it. Ethically speaking, the contradiction involves the fact that moral justification draws its sense from the human framework. To leave this framework is, essentially, to leave ethics behind. It is to enter a moral vacuum where the call to justify one’s actions is undermined by the absence of justification implicit in occupying a standpoint beyond humanity.”
Which “Herd” does Johnson and Cummings want us to join? And therefore have immunity to?
The Herd type may heavily depend on the virus strain; CoVid has been busy mutating, many mutations are not important, but some really are! The early strain (D614, until mid-March) was dominant, now G614 is taking over [1]. These strains will likely have different properties (infectivity and fatality rates), G614 seems worse [1]?
If you go for Herd immunity and there are different strains many people will become “co-infected” with different strains. In this situation further genetic transformation occurs, an effect called recombination leading to yet more different strains, each with its own distinct hazards. So going for Herd immunity presents further unknown risks.
Come on Mr Johnson/Cummings how shall we apply Common Sense to this all. I am not a Lert, you might be Lerts (London Etonian Rich and T***).
Let the scientists do their jobs without Cummings whispering you’re smoked [fired]; or having to sign NDAs and the official secrets act. Publish SAGE findings without interference, let the press freely interview the SAGE – then make informed policy [political] decisions.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1.full.pdf
thank you,
you raise and explain well a technical complication that I was dimly aware of but had let slip from my mind,
I had read of tests where more than one strain were found in the sample,
I’ve been looking at the Spanish Flu pandemic, in the USA the first wave was unpleasant but not disastrous,
the second wave was very nasty, one doctor writing to a friend said some of his patients were so starved of oxygen they turned blue to the extent he couldn’t tell if they were of anglo-saxon stock or african american,
by allowing this virus to spread, breed, mutate, cross-breed, we only increase the odds of it turning into something even more unpleasant.
There were three peaks of Spanish flu in the UK. The second was the worst, but the third was worse than the first. See figure 1 here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730600/
There is also the possibility that, like many infectious diseases, this coronavirus will evolve into something less virulent. The virus just wants to make more copies by infecting more cells, and killing the host is actually bad for that.
We survived Spanish flu and other pandemics. We’ll survive this one too, but we don’t know how many people will die (and even the people who recover might suffer continuing health problems in the longer term) or what our society will look like afterwards. If something like 10m people are effectually supported by the government at the moment (and their dependents, and children, and pensioners, and it might easily be half of the country) goodness knows how we switch that off. It is approaching a universal income scheme already.
One of the more interesting points made in that WHO presentation is the early results from serological studies (blood tests looking for antibodies of those who were infected and recovered) showing that, contrary to expectation, there is not a very large number of people who were infected but only had mild symptoms. It seems that only 10 to 15% of the population have antibodies (and if the virus continues to mutate, those antibodies won’t help them against reinfection against COVID 20, 21, 22). So there remains 85 to 90% of the population who *could* be infected in future. “Flattening the curve” just means those people remain vulnerable later in the course of the epidemic.
Everyone is hoping that this coronavirus epidemic will just magically disappear in a few months, or a vaccine will suddenly pop up. But we’ve been looking for a vaccine against HIV since the 1980s without much success (although we do have several effective prophylactic and therapeutic interventions now, decades later). Dealing with this coronavirus could also be very much more of a marathon than a sprint. Social distancing, face masks, etc, could become daily features of life for years.
Meanwhile, Brexit, global warming, and all the other things that are not receiving much attention …
Agreed re all that
And congrats on your 700th comment…
Oh, crumbs. Thanks I think. I have some way to go to match your 17,000+ blog posts, though!
🙂
Agreed Andrew. The second and further waves are due to loss and lack of immunity, and virus mutation. Flattening the curve might be the best we can do together with new treatments that emerge.
London hospital drs/scientists are seeing CV19 adapting to humans [1]. It will continue to mutate and will likely be more transmissible, but less deadly. This progression to lower mortality could take 2 – 3 years. Then we’ll be able to live with it, perhaps without worrying.
Sorry not great news, but Trump will sell us his vaccines he’s invented.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.28.066977v1.full.pdf [A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed]. From the Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
Herd immunity hasn’t worked so well against the common cold, has it? Or against seasonal flu?
Viruses are tricky, because they keep mutating. So, even if getting Covid-19 means you will gain immunity to it (an assumption that has certainly not been proven), by the time the coronavirus reaches you again, it’s likely to be a different form. That means you won’t have immunity to the next wave. Not only that, the coronavirus might well have evolved into a more deadly form that kills more people than the present version.
The only way (barring effective vaccines) to stop this virus in its tracks is to stop spreading it. Without hosts, it will die out. If we keep passing it around, anything can happen.