Interesting. I'm not going to sign it straight away because I want to think about it, but it is becoming clear that coming in and out of lockdown is not going to be sustainable. This may be the way forward.
Real Science, including support by distinguished scientists Professor Bert N. Ernie and Professor Seymour Butz.
Got to admit I’m coming round to this way of thinking. Rather than the constant rule changes. Trying to stem the flow. Cases up/down repeat. I’ve always had the thought that I will inevitably catch the dammed thing. Sooner or later. I still follow all the rules as best I can. I still go to work. Some will not have that opportunity when their jobs have gone to the wall. The government are not bringing any evidence forward to suggest the guidelines they are bringing in have any credence. Eg the 10pm curfew on pubs. Survival for those affected most, Is vastly improved by easing the conditions. Aiding recovery. I don’t think we are there yet. But I think herd immunity is the way forward. But I wish that those that ignore the rules would bear in mind, think about wearing masks for example. Until we are over the worst. And hope within hope a vaccine is found.
As well as the health effects of lockdown there has to be an analysis of how much human lives are worth compared to the economic damage of restrictions. Assigning a monetary value to a life is hard to stomach but it's a necessary assessment for a government to make.
Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nity-strategy-is-regarded-as-fringe-viewpoint Have a good think before you sign anything.
Pretty sure that must already have been done and some form of it will have been in place since the inception of the NHS. It’ll be what is used to determine whether a particular drug/treatment is made available on the NHS. However rather than a simple measure like life I think it’s something like the number of years of good quality of life saved. Sure someone on here will know more than me. Would be interesting to know how much has been spent/lost in response to the pandemic and how many years of a good quality of life have been saved. Would also be interesting to know how that compares to the figure used to determine availability of treatments on the NHS.
As soon as I read that the document "....originates from the American Institute for Economic Research" I became suspicious. Also, I thought restrictions, rather than a herd immunity approach were not believed by anyone to be a means to eliminate pandemic but to prevent hospitals and UCUs from being overwhelmed as they were in the early stages -in Piedmont, Italy for example. There seems to be no acknowledgement in this document that taking the 'brakes off' will not lead to that situation. I posted a few weeks ago that I was thinking along similar lines to this approach but caveated it with the requirement to be able to rapidly implement measures before hospital admissions get anywhere near crisis point. To that end, local measures in hot spots rather than blanket restrictions seems the way forward. Conte in Italy has just announced they will extend the state of emergency until 31st January 2021 and made face masks obligatory outdoors and in public places indoors where you may come into contact with people other than those immediate family you are in constant contact with. HOWEVER... he stated no more national lockdowns will be applied. To that end I think the 10pm pub curfew is plain daft. I seem to remember when closing times were introduced landlords originally said many drinkers simply drank the same amount in a shorter time period. Rather than people arriving more spaced out over a longer time they all cram in to the available time slot and everybody piles out at the same closing time. Apparently, as has been often pointed out . Coronavirus becomes far more potent after 10pm!!!!??? I know we are told we should heed the experts but where is the logic behind this 10pm curfew. Logic in this case seems to contradict the science. Neverftheless, a return to 'business as usual ' pre-pandemic as this document appears to be advocating is surely not the way forward.
For me we either had to take this extremely serious from the start & have a strict lockdown & stop travel in & out if the country barring essentials & if we didn’t do that then you might as well do herd immunity. This government is here for several more years & they won’t do a strict lockdown so they might as well let the virus spread. That sounds harsh but with how half arsed these measures are everyones going to get it anyway. It’ll be an horrific few months but it seems a better alternative than it happening gradually over several years.
Only three problems with that: 1). There is no guarantee of immunity (and already reported cases of reinfection being worse than initial infection). 2). There is no guarantee that no long-term effects of infection. We could let it burn through the population with a massive death toll (well into 6 figures) and then find out 10% get cancer in 10 years as a result. (Unlikely to be so high, but not impossible and a number already get life-changing after-effects). 3). There is a good chance of a change in circumstances within the next 6 months to 1 year - either a vaccine, or a viral mutation into a less harmful strain. People that are infected have a chance of dying (albeit small for a small majority of the population) from the initial infection, a large number will suffer long-term consequences (long COVID), and none of them will benefit from a vaccine. We should have locked down initially much sooner, we should have been (and still be) quarantining any international travelers and the government needed to get track & trace sorted six months ago. And we aren't really in any kind of lockdown anywhere in the UK that this was opposing. Even in Manchester or Leicester, the "restrictions" are far laxer than those many are objecting to. As for the "Great Barrington Declaration", the science is suspect (at best), there is dodgy right-wing money behind it and just about every major scientific body (in disease control) is against it: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/ https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-barrington-declaration-and-its-critics/ If you are thinking of signing it, please read all sides of the argument - and understand their "solutions" to the issues raised are in many cases neither solutions or practical.
The government certainly have to take responsibility for what has been a sh1tshower of confusing rules. BUT lets not forget the ridiculous amount of folk who haven't taken this seriously or think they are being 'clever' ( otherwise read selfish or thick) and therefore sabotaged a lot of good. I work with the retail sector for work and shops are pulling their hair out at customers behaviour, masks 'worn' but not in a way that would do any good, social distancing only applying until they see something where somebody else is stood. The restrictions on pub opening hours then crowds gathering in the street, folk going on about how that was 'forced to happen', no it wasn't folk could just fk off home like the government intended, illegal gatherings , the clues in the word illegal. Could rant on but I won't, yes its been a farce all round but ...................
"Mask worn but not in a way that would do any good". I stated not too long ago that, on rare occasions and in limited circumstances (as do many here over in hot climate, including medical staff) I have worn a mask leaving the nose uncovered. I got hatrangued on here for being selfish and irresponsible. Firstly, there is a correct way to wear a mask i.e. cover nose and face. However, in spite of the 'expert' guidance that that is effective there are several mitigating circumstances where it is not carved in stone that any other way endangers other people.... Non surgical masks such as most people are wearing are not airtight and not perfectly fitting. We are not talking enclosed breathing systems here. Masks are porous and certainly not Hepa-filter material. Nor do they create a perfect seal around the edges. Exhaled air is therefore expelled into the atmosphere regardless whether or not a mask is being worn. Their purpose is solely to limit the velocity of the exhaled air and diffuse it thus preventing it extending more than a few feet and also to prevent microparticles travelling extending distances. Scientific test have shown that air expelled through sneezing and coughing actually travel no further or faster than shouting or singing. Both of these actually expel air marginally faster and further than talking. ( Scientific docs are readily available in the Web). Inhaling and exhaling through the nostrils is better for an individual as it filters many particles when inhaling prior to entering the lungs but also the restricted openings in nasal airways when exhaling compared to exhaling through the mouth means air spends longer in the lungs and more oxygen is extracted per breath. That is one reason experts state mask should cover the nose since breathing is an automatic process we do subconsciously and usually through the nostrils. Nevertheless, we CAN consciously control breathing via the mouth for limited periods. Many people in times of physical exertion inhale/exhale via the mouth. Divers using Scuba DVs inhale exhale through the mouth albeit with nose clips and goggles or more usually a mask that covers the eyes and nose. Whilst, as someone commented, small amount of air may escape via the nostrils when someone is exhaling through the mouth, the quantity and more importantly the velocity of the airflow is miniscule compared to the amount of air escaping through and around the mask. Agree totally that it is important to note that if social distancing is impossible then nose and mouth should always be covered by the mask and that it is as snug a fit as possible. Equally though, wearing a mask for prolonged periods in extreme climates of 30C+ without any relief is not really practical. Try wearing one for a full working day in extreme temperatures before getting 'high and mighty' and calling people, like I was, stupid , selfish and uncaring. Hence you see people here walking around breathing in fresh air through their 'uncovered' nose. I do and then re-adjust it if anyone comes close. Masks are important but not the guarantee of safety from Covid however they are worn.
