Only one speed

[T00ts]

They know they have no way of stopping it. The chances of sufficient infection for it to die out naturally is a red herring. They hope to regulate the spread for NHS convenience. In the meantime they frantically look for a vaccine while hoping that the population will be frightened enough to be obedient. I am convinced that this year is a write off for me.

[patman post]

I still see no evidence that "herd immunity" is/was a main aim of government strategy. But I see commentators latching on to the idea, and Interpreting the subordinate consequential outcome of keeping the rise in infection below the level it would swamp the NHS, as the story.

This is one example (admittedly in a rapidly advancing/changing situation) where government clarity in communication fell short...

[Barry]

Now that policy has been abandoned, it seems to me obvious we will be under lockdown until he other side of next christmas

Really? You think Joe Public is going to be happy sitting on the Internet playing Warcraft and trolling Twitter and Facebook for 9 months?

No way.

[Barry]

It's unfair to take a part of a sentence out of context.

I've not seen any official statement where the phrase "herd immunity" could be construed to mean that the UK planned to have an epidemic to get people infected.

and even more unfair to suggest that the video clip which I watched has an official using the term "herd immunity" The term is used by the interviewer, not Sir Patrick Vallance.



The government are doing their best. The PM is stricken with it, as are other politicians. It's easy to criticise from behind a keyboard.

[johnofgwent]

Re the Sky News clip:

The interviewer posed the phrase in a question, and was answered. I see no conflict with my opinion that "herd immunity" is a consequence, a side effect, and not an aim...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/britain-uk-coronavirus-response-johnson-drops-go-it-alone/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/br ... -it-alone/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/britain-uk-coronavirus-response-johnson-drops-go-it-alone/



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/13/why-is-the-government-relying-on-nudge-theory-to-tackle-coronavirus">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oronavirus">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/13/why-is-the-government-relying-on-nudge-theory-to-tackle-coronavirus



And in particular, in that second link



With an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 coronavirus cases now present in the UK, the government has eschewed social distancing measures such as closing schools and banning large sporting events. Instead, it has opted for behavioural "nudges": wash your hands, don't touch your face, don't shake hands with others, stay at home if you feel ill, and self-isolate if you have a continuous cough.



This approach differs starkly from the quarantine measures taken in China, South Korea, Italy and Iran. But it also marks the UK out as different from countries such as Ireland, Norway and Denmark, which have implemented school closures despite seeing only a relatively small number of coronavirus cases. Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, has explained that part of the reason for not embracing bans is to encourage "herd immunity". Allow enough of those who can survive coronavirus disease to get infected, and the virus won't have new people to infect, meaning new cases will dry up.



In the original guardian article, the reference to Patrick Vallance's words are a hyperlink pointing here :-



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/coronavirus-science-chief-defends-uk-measures-criticism-herd-immunity">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... d-immunity">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/coronavirus-science-chief-defends-uk-measures-criticism-herd-immunity



That says THIS



With experts from the "nudge unit" involved in determining how to shape the government's response, the shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, asked the health secretary, Matt Hancock, earlier this week for reassurance that the approach was not based too much on behavioural science.



But Vallance sought to underline that it is the epidemiology that is guiding the decision not to impose more draconian restrictions on the public's day-to-day lives immediately.



[size=150]"If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time," he said. The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched".[/size]



Seems fairly obvious to me. Vallance was saying it was HIS AIM to infect people now, as the warmer weather approached, so that they could avoid a massive spike in WINTER 2020/2021.



Now that policy has been abandoned, it seems to me obvious we will be under lockdown until he other side of next christmas

[papasmurf]

On the bright side he brought a vigour to the proceedings very much lacking recently, but words are cheap.

Words are very cheap there is still no or very little sign of the PPE equipment promised ending up where people need it.

(Lots of cmplaints about it all over the media today.)



I had to, despite being told to stay at home for 12 weeks go to a post operative eye check apointment this morning.

The only person who had any PPE kit at that check was me.

It is an (Expletive deleted,) disgrace. A country with some of the best logistics on the planet and the government can't get vital medical kit delivered.

[patman post]

Re the Sky News clip:

The interviewer posed the phrase in a question, and was answered. I see no conflict with my opinion that "herd immunity" is a consequence, a side effect, and not an aim...

[T00ts]

I've not seen any official statement where the phrase "herd immunity" could be construed to mean that the UK planned to have an epidemic to get people infected.

From what I've seen (and I've no access to more info than any other member of the public) the UK's goal is the same as that of other countries: ie, flatten the curve by staggering the onset of infections. As a consequence, the nation may achieve herd immunity, but it's a side effect, not an aim.

To check, the government's actual coronavirus action plan is can be seen online**. It doesn't mention herd immunity at all.

Where the government and its advisers could be accused of failings is in some of its less than clear messaging — despite claims Cummings is a master of the art...

** https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... oss-the-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

Having just watched tonight's update with Matt Hancock fresh out of isolation I just wonder if having had it himself he is now more nearly related to it and it's no longer something that just happens to others. I would imagine anyone knowing they have it and experiencing mild symptoms are thanking their lucky stars and spend their week in isolation worried sick about their families and if they have passed it to them and what effect it will have on them.

On the bright side he brought a vigour to the proceedings very much lacking recently, but words are cheap.  There are times when I loathe the press but on this occasion - with no functioning opposition - they have brought things to a head, where the government, if they don't change tack, at least realise that some were losing confidence and that they need to up their game both in action and message. Let's see what happens now.

[cromwell]

There was a time that we were allowed to cut corners to get things done.



Then some arsehole called maggie thatcher allowed solicitors to advertise.



Prior to her doing this, there was a massive uptake of seemingly barking mad ideas espoused in the research papers of the biochemical and microbiological societies into discussion papers in "The Lancet" and other publications of the medical profession, and as a direct result of that, things got done. And people were rescued from the undertaker's grasp.



These days, a whole lorry load of ambulance chasing lawyers ensure that nothing happens until the profession is safe from the lawyer's bills.



I have the most serious doubts that half of the people who live and breathe as a result of a barking mad idea I once had being read by an even more barking mad bloke with a medical degree to his name who found a way to put it into practice would be living and breathing were those lawyers to have the teeth then that they have today.



Multiply that up and you soon have wembley stadium filled with people who owe their continuing ability to respire to the fact there were no "no win no fee" lawsuits.



Given one of the blokes who i worked with patented the way to kickstart the lungs in premature babies and I and a whole load of others worked on ideas to keep soldiers whose lungs had been weakened by chemical agents from dying, i think it is very, very important to shout from the rooftops that the "finest leader the tory party ever had" ensured my work and that of hundreds of others in these fields came t an abruot end.



it's a shame her grandkids are not in need of that research.

Well as the old saying goes she was a baroness,and it's a pity her father wasn't barren.

[papasmurf]

I've not seen any official statement where the phrase "herd immunity"

[patman post]

I've not seen any official statement where the phrase "herd immunity" could be construed to mean that the UK planned to have an epidemic to get people infected.

From what I've seen (and I've no access to more info than any other member of the public) the UK's goal is the same as that of other countries: ie, flatten the curve by staggering the onset of infections. As a consequence, the nation may achieve herd immunity, but it's a side effect, not an aim.

To check, the government's actual coronavirus action plan is can be seen online**. It doesn't mention herd immunity at all.

Where the government and its advisers could be accused of failings is in some of its less than clear messaging — despite claims Cummings is a master of the art...

** https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... oss-the-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

[Nalaar]

I 100% think the criticism is unfounded. Boris is neither a scientist nor a medical expert so he is following their guidance. If he didn't you'd just ask why he wasn't listening to the experts. Anyone who thinks they're not trying their best is off their rocker in my opinion.

Do you think criticism of the governments plan for 'herd immunity' was anything other than well founded, and well deserved?

[T00ts]

There was a time that we were allowed to cut corners to get things done.



Then some arsehole called maggie thatcher allowed solicitors to advertise.



Prior to her doing this, there was a massive uptake of seemingly barking mad ideas espoused in the research papers of the biochemical and microbiological societies into discussion papers in "The Lancet" and other publications of the medical profession, and as a direct result of that, things got done. And people were rescued from the undertaker's grasp.



These days, a whole lorry load of ambulance chasing lawyers ensure that nothing happens until the profession is safe from the lawyer's bills.



I have the most serious doubts that half of the people who live and breathe as a result of a barking mad idea I once had being read by an even more barking mad bloke with a medical degree to his name who found a way to put it into practice would be living and breathing were those lawyers to have the teeth then that they have today.



Multiply that up and you soon have wembley stadium filled with people who owe their continuing ability to respire to the fact there were no "no win no fee" lawsuits.



Given one of the blokes who i worked with patented the way to kickstart the lungs in premature babies and I and a whole load of others worked on ideas to keep soldiers whose lungs had been weakened by chemical agents from dying, i think it is very, very important to shout from the rooftops that the "finest leader the tory party ever had" ensured my work and that of hundreds of others in these fields came t an abruot end.



it's a shame her grandkids are not in need of that research.

Wow having a family of lawyers I should have thought of that. So offers of maverick help from entrepreneurial quarters would be frowned upon at the outset. Of course!  Perhaps we need a few maverick leaders.

[johnofgwent]

I have tried I really have. I have supported the government and the scientists and the medical professionals but my goodness I am losing the will! Each time I watch the daily updates I see only mediocrity. I don't see anyone yet who gives me any confidence that there is any other speed in Government than slow. There is absolutely no energy evident, there are no targets for action. There is the very visual 4000 Nightingale effort repeated apparently across the country but there is little else that gives me confidence. We seem to be constantly waiting for results before there is any real action. Always plans which appear to move further and further away each day.



We hear of engineering efforts on equipment designed in days but taking weeks to test, we hear of £2 tests that give almost instant results created here which the government might look at and all sorts of people appear to be really pulling the stops out to help and yet each day the point of impact is dulled by lack lustre, dynamic free puppets who look so laid back they are almost horizontal.  If they are going to keep people on board they need to manage some sort of evidence of urgency.



Good intentions without forceful action to back them up is close to just taking a duvet day.

There was a time that we were allowed to cut corners to get things done.



Then some arsehole called maggie thatcher allowed solicitors to advertise.



Prior to her doing this, there was a massive uptake of seemingly barking mad ideas espoused in the research papers of the biochemical and microbiological societies into discussion papers in "The Lancet" and other publications of the medical profession, and as a direct result of that, things got done. And people were rescued from the undertaker's grasp.



These days, a whole lorry load of ambulance chasing lawyers ensure that nothing happens until the profession is safe from the lawyer's bills.



I have the most serious doubts that half of the people who live and breathe as a result of a barking mad idea I once had being read by an even more barking mad bloke with a medical degree to his name who found a way to put it into practice would be living and breathing were those lawyers to have the teeth then that they have today.



Multiply that up and you soon have wembley stadium filled with people who owe their continuing ability to respire to the fact there were no "no win no fee" lawsuits.



Given one of the blokes who i worked with patented the way to kickstart the lungs in premature babies and I and a whole load of others worked on ideas to keep soldiers whose lungs had been weakened by chemical agents from dying, i think it is very, very important to shout from the rooftops that the "finest leader the tory party ever had" ensured my work and that of hundreds of others in these fields came t an abruot end.



it's a shame her grandkids are not in need of that research.

[T00ts]

I 100% think the criticism is unfounded. Boris is neither a scientist nor a medical expert so he is following their guidance. If he didn't you'd just ask why he wasn't listening to the experts. Anyone who thinks they're not trying their best is off their rocker in my opinion.

Thank you. Time will tell.