6 ms·

The common hepatitis virus stays in the body forever and may be responsible for countless things we have typically classified as auto immune disorders. So to s

The common hepatitis virus stays in the body forever and may be responsible for countless things we have typically classified as auto immune disorders. So to say the solution is to get most least at risk people infected without even knowing if those 60000 recovered Chinese are all going to die in 6 months, that's just stupid.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
They didnt say that the most least at risk people should get infected. I interpreted their guidence to be more in line with what you just said "Avoid infection, because we do not yet know if this virus induces long-term immunity, as many other similar viruses do not."
- piker 7y ago
  Given the ambiguous use of pronouns, it seems you may be talking past one another. GP seems to be criticizing the UK government's approach whereas parent seems to be summarizing TFA's guidance.
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    Whaaaat? U.K. government health officials are asking strong healthy people to get infected?
    - piker 7y ago
      Rather, accepting that people will get infected and proposing that if it's limited to healthy people, the community will develop a "herd immunity" due to the healthy people's new immunity.
      - killjoywashere 7y ago
        They actually said that? That's some next level fuck-it-I-don-t-want-to-be-in-charge-anymore attitude. Wow. Where's Churchill when you need him? Edit: yes, he said that. And more. Wow. https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5 https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea6...
        sgt101 7y ago
        I can't understand your reading of what is being said. Here is the quote : 'In another interview with the BBC, Sir Patrick said: “If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.” He added: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”'
        vidarh 7y ago
        Churchill was very much in favour of making callous tradeoffs if he believed it had long term benefits, e.g. the Bengal famine. Churchill incidentally happens to be one of Boris Johnsons great heroes.
        pnako 7y ago
        Churchill is not exactly a good example of solid decision making.
      - dTal 7y ago
        Bit of a trolley problem, when "accepting it" means "not trying very hard to stop it".
    - Angostura 7y ago
      Absolutely not, there is still strong advice in terms of regular handwashing etc. Rather the government is saying that you have to time strong lock down procedures correctly. They are saying that outdoor gatherings such as you get at football matches don;t present a high risk (as long as you are washing your hands) compared to the risk of catching the disease from family members in doors. Moreover they argue that demanding a long-term lock (14 weeks for schools, according to their modelling) is problematic if you go too early - they want to time it to be just before the peak. Basically is playing chicken with an unrushing truck, but a game of chicken with a purpose behind it. The Chief Medical Officer Chris Whittey is an epidemiologist and I've only heard good things about him. I'm willing to take his advice. They government says it will be publishing the models.
      - notahacker 7y ago
        Also worth noting that in his previous role in DFID Whitty coauthored papers advising the UK government funding isolation centres in Sierra Leone for Ebola, so it's unlikely that he has any particular radical bias against the efficacy of isolation as a disease prevention method.
- pavelrub 7y ago
  I think GP was referring to the government's plan, not the suggestions in the letter.
  - coding123 7y ago
    Yes I was thanks for the clarification.
- coding123 7y ago
  Yes sorry I didn't make it clear I was bashing the govt response, essentially agreeing with this open letter.
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    Got it

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

They didnt say that the most least at risk people should get infected. I interpreted their guidence to be more in line with what you just said "Avoid infection, because we do not yet know if this virus induces long-term immunity, as many other similar viruses do not."

piker 7y ago
Given the ambiguous use of pronouns, it seems you may be talking past one another. GP seems to be criticizing the UK government's approach whereas parent seems to be summarizing TFA's guidance.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Whaaaat? U.K. government health officials are asking strong healthy people to get infected?
  - piker 7y ago
    Rather, accepting that people will get infected and proposing that if it's limited to healthy people, the community will develop a "herd immunity" due to the healthy people's new immunity.
    - killjoywashere 7y ago
      They actually said that? That's some next level fuck-it-I-don-t-want-to-be-in-charge-anymore attitude. Wow. Where's Churchill when you need him? Edit: yes, he said that. And more. Wow. https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5 https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea6...
      - sgt101 7y ago
        I can't understand your reading of what is being said. Here is the quote : 'In another interview with the BBC, Sir Patrick said: “If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.” He added: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”'
      - vidarh 7y ago
        Churchill was very much in favour of making callous tradeoffs if he believed it had long term benefits, e.g. the Bengal famine. Churchill incidentally happens to be one of Boris Johnsons great heroes.
      - pnako 7y ago
        Churchill is not exactly a good example of solid decision making.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Bit of a trolley problem, when "accepting it" means "not trying very hard to stop it".
  - Angostura 7y ago
    Absolutely not, there is still strong advice in terms of regular handwashing etc. Rather the government is saying that you have to time strong lock down procedures correctly. They are saying that outdoor gatherings such as you get at football matches don;t present a high risk (as long as you are washing your hands) compared to the risk of catching the disease from family members in doors. Moreover they argue that demanding a long-term lock (14 weeks for schools, according to their modelling) is problematic if you go too early - they want to time it to be just before the peak. Basically is playing chicken with an unrushing truck, but a game of chicken with a purpose behind it. The Chief Medical Officer Chris Whittey is an epidemiologist and I've only heard good things about him. I'm willing to take his advice. They government says it will be publishing the models.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      Also worth noting that in his previous role in DFID Whitty coauthored papers advising the UK government funding isolation centres in Sierra Leone for Ebola, so it's unlikely that he has any particular radical bias against the efficacy of isolation as a disease prevention method.
pavelrub 7y ago
I think GP was referring to the government's plan, not the suggestions in the letter.
- coding123 7y ago
  Yes I was thanks for the clarification.
coding123 7y ago
Yes sorry I didn't make it clear I was bashing the govt response, essentially agreeing with this open letter.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Got it