Coronavirus
With Coronavirus cases rising exponentially, the UK response seems muted and complacent. Here is my post on how we could be walking into a catastrophe. Apologies to those of a squeamish nature.
Suddenly there are experts everywhere. From being the least trusted individuals in public life, thanks to being rubbished by Gove and other believers in faith over facts, the government now prefaces every statement with "on the advice of scientific experts". But there is something deeply disturbing about what they are saying. "Herd immunity" has become the latest fashionable talking point. What does it mean and what does it really mean?
The idea, if taken at face value, is to take advantage of your immune system, which on being attacked will generate antibodies to resist the attack. Once the body has learned how to defend itself it should have an immunity against future attacks by the same virus. By allowing the virus to pass through the herd (population), the virus is suffocated by having too few victims to allow effective multiplication. According to Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Chris Whitty, 60% of the population would have to acquire immunity for this to work.
From other figures provided by Whitty and recognised sources, such as the WHO, it is possible to work out the number of deaths implied. Here they are.
Population 66m
Infections required 60% x 66m = 39.6m
Mortality rate 1-3.4%
Deaths 390 000 - 1.35m
I have never heard numbers like these mentioned. You can do the sums in your head but the explanations are opaque. The experts rely on the public not being able to join the dots.
If the death toll seems an unreasonable price to pay for herd immunity, the argument becomes even more perverse when linked with the idea of "flattening the curve", or the "sombrero" as Johnson stupidly put it. The curve demonstrates how interventions can reduce the peak volume of cases to below that which the NHS can cope with before it gets overloaded and eventually overwhelmed. The flattened curve is not an argument for passing the virus through the herd. It works in the opposite direction, to control the number of cases as vigorously as possible until a vaccine is available. The objective is to save as many lives as possible.
And here we begin to see the game the government is playing. It wants to flatten the curve enough to prevent a complete meltdown but not so much that the virus fails to infect 60% of the herd. It is trying to manipulate the growth of cases in the same way as you might use interest rates to control economic growth. By reacting more slowly to calls for a lockdown it can increase the number of cases. If they grow too quickly it might introduce measures to slow down the increase. Needless to say, there are big problems with this approach.
First and foremost is the enormous death toll. The top figure implied, let me remind you, is 1.35m. This is unlikely because as panic spreads the government would be forced to take extreme measures similar to what we have seen in China and Italy. Nonetheless, it shows what a deadly game the government is playing, where even small mistakes could lead to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The second problem with herd immunity is that it may not work! There is not enough evidence to prove whether survivors gain immunity or how long it lasts. All in all, as ideas go, herd immunity must be one of the worst in history.
I believe the reason for proposing such a dangerous remedy has to be economic. The world is facing a global recession and the likelihood is that we will have our own recession, and it will be augmented by factors such as a poor trade deal with the EU. By producing a herd of economically viable humans we could do well in a world where some populations are still locked down. Although the proponents would never dream of saying so, we could buy economic productivity by accepting the deaths associated with herd immunity. Whatever the case, whenever economic factors are being discussed, be under no illusions as to the implied trade off. It is deaths versus productivity. I could go on to present an even more disgraceful motive in which older, more vulnerable victims are seen as dispensable. The case of Sabisky being appointed as a special advisor, someone who has written about eugenics, and the opinions of Cummings himself, do not instil much confidence here. The point is, the advice the government is taking, is not politically neutral. The experts themselves do not seem to be politically neutral either. For an example, watch this confrontation between John Edmunds, arguing for herd immunisation and Tomas Pueyo on Channel 4 News.
The alternative to this mad idea is to take drastic action and slow the epidemic right now with severe restrictions on movement and social distancing and ramp up testing and tracking. If this does not happen we will overtake Italy in a few weeks' time. The NHS will be overwhelmed. The government itself will be overwhelmed, as ministers become infected, and there are multiple system failures across society. There is no telling how bad the outcome could be. I think it is imperative the government is exposed, Johnson is removed and his clique of government supporting experts are removed. They are a danger to us all.
For a more sane view, this conversation may save your life.
Suddenly there are experts everywhere. From being the least trusted individuals in public life, thanks to being rubbished by Gove and other believers in faith over facts, the government now prefaces every statement with "on the advice of scientific experts". But there is something deeply disturbing about what they are saying. "Herd immunity" has become the latest fashionable talking point. What does it mean and what does it really mean?
The idea, if taken at face value, is to take advantage of your immune system, which on being attacked will generate antibodies to resist the attack. Once the body has learned how to defend itself it should have an immunity against future attacks by the same virus. By allowing the virus to pass through the herd (population), the virus is suffocated by having too few victims to allow effective multiplication. According to Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Chris Whitty, 60% of the population would have to acquire immunity for this to work.
From other figures provided by Whitty and recognised sources, such as the WHO, it is possible to work out the number of deaths implied. Here they are.
Population 66m
Infections required 60% x 66m = 39.6m
Mortality rate 1-3.4%
Deaths 390 000 - 1.35m
I have never heard numbers like these mentioned. You can do the sums in your head but the explanations are opaque. The experts rely on the public not being able to join the dots.
If the death toll seems an unreasonable price to pay for herd immunity, the argument becomes even more perverse when linked with the idea of "flattening the curve", or the "sombrero" as Johnson stupidly put it. The curve demonstrates how interventions can reduce the peak volume of cases to below that which the NHS can cope with before it gets overloaded and eventually overwhelmed. The flattened curve is not an argument for passing the virus through the herd. It works in the opposite direction, to control the number of cases as vigorously as possible until a vaccine is available. The objective is to save as many lives as possible.
And here we begin to see the game the government is playing. It wants to flatten the curve enough to prevent a complete meltdown but not so much that the virus fails to infect 60% of the herd. It is trying to manipulate the growth of cases in the same way as you might use interest rates to control economic growth. By reacting more slowly to calls for a lockdown it can increase the number of cases. If they grow too quickly it might introduce measures to slow down the increase. Needless to say, there are big problems with this approach.
First and foremost is the enormous death toll. The top figure implied, let me remind you, is 1.35m. This is unlikely because as panic spreads the government would be forced to take extreme measures similar to what we have seen in China and Italy. Nonetheless, it shows what a deadly game the government is playing, where even small mistakes could lead to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The second problem with herd immunity is that it may not work! There is not enough evidence to prove whether survivors gain immunity or how long it lasts. All in all, as ideas go, herd immunity must be one of the worst in history.
I believe the reason for proposing such a dangerous remedy has to be economic. The world is facing a global recession and the likelihood is that we will have our own recession, and it will be augmented by factors such as a poor trade deal with the EU. By producing a herd of economically viable humans we could do well in a world where some populations are still locked down. Although the proponents would never dream of saying so, we could buy economic productivity by accepting the deaths associated with herd immunity. Whatever the case, whenever economic factors are being discussed, be under no illusions as to the implied trade off. It is deaths versus productivity. I could go on to present an even more disgraceful motive in which older, more vulnerable victims are seen as dispensable. The case of Sabisky being appointed as a special advisor, someone who has written about eugenics, and the opinions of Cummings himself, do not instil much confidence here. The point is, the advice the government is taking, is not politically neutral. The experts themselves do not seem to be politically neutral either. For an example, watch this confrontation between John Edmunds, arguing for herd immunisation and Tomas Pueyo on Channel 4 News.
The alternative to this mad idea is to take drastic action and slow the epidemic right now with severe restrictions on movement and social distancing and ramp up testing and tracking. If this does not happen we will overtake Italy in a few weeks' time. The NHS will be overwhelmed. The government itself will be overwhelmed, as ministers become infected, and there are multiple system failures across society. There is no telling how bad the outcome could be. I think it is imperative the government is exposed, Johnson is removed and his clique of government supporting experts are removed. They are a danger to us all.
For a more sane view, this conversation may save your life.
Comments
Post a Comment