4 ms·
They are neither; they are making difficult decisions on the basis of limited information across multiple disciplines. The main aim is to prevent the NHS from b
by hyko 7y ago
They are neither; they are making difficult decisions on the basis of limited information across multiple disciplines. The main aim is to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, which would be a humanitarian disaster. A secondary aim is to prevent bringing economic life to an end in the UK, which would also be a humanitarian disaster.
We are at most about five months into this pandemic; to suggest we know what strategies succeeded and failed is very premature. We are just at the beginning.
In another world, we could all spend 2020 in individual seclusion, without any economic, social, familial, cultural, mental, or behavioral concerns. In the world that actually exists, "No man is an island,
entire of itself" and so rather annoyingly we must continue to live our lives without being completely governed by epidemiological concerns. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted asymptomatically and is basically everywhere at this point, so if your entire strategy is just "don't let anyone get infected, ever", it is surely doomed?
One country did get a legitimate chance to end COVID-19 for all humanity by preventing onward transmission, and they blew it. The next off ramp is global herd immunity (either natural or artificial), which lies years or decades in the future.
It's worth pointing out that the UK already pursues a strategy of herd immunity regarding chicken pox (along with other countries), despite the availability of a vaccine: http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-... I disagree with that strategy but I am not qualified to make that decision on behalf of a country, and I'm glad it's not my responsibility to do so.
- JetSetWilly 7y ago> the UK already pursues a strategy of herd immunity regarding chicken pox (along with other countries), despite the availability of a vaccine: http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-.. http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-.... I disagree with that strategy but I am not qualified to make that decision on behalf of a country, and I'm glad it's not my responsibility to do so. The UK does not vaccinate against chickenpox because it judges that the overall public health consequences are worse if you vaccinate than if you don't - it would increase the frequency of shingles which is much worse than chickenpox.
- hyko 7y agoThat for me is where the logic breaks down, a comprehensive vaccine programme for shingles would seem far more effective than just hoping the adults come into contact with infected children.
- JetSetWilly 7y agoAnti-vaxxers are a thing. If you vaccinate then due to herd immunity the anti-vaxxers don't get exposed to chickpenpox nearly as much and then end up getting shingles. Also then anti-vaxxer children get chickenpox much later in life when it can be more serious. If you don't vaccinate everybody gets exposed to chickenpox much more and the proportion of shingles cases ends up being smaller, not only that but anti-vaxxer children don't need to worry about getting their first case of chickenpox at age 30.
- yesenadam 7y ago> http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-... Thanks for linking to that fascinating article, by far the most enlightening virusy thing I've read.