Quote:
Originally Posted by Seibei
I am too, not just about this, but the fact that UK authorities seem to want a larger number of people to become infected in order to develop "herd immunity".
Essentially letting the virus run it's course.
"To avoid a second peak in the winter, Vallance said the U.K. would suppress the virus “but not get rid of it completely,” while focusing on protecting vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. In the meantime, other people would get sick. But since the virus causes milder illness in younger age groups, most would recover and subsequently be immune to the virus. This “herd immunity” would reduce transmission in the event of a winter resurgence. On Sky News, Vallance said that “probably about 60 percent” of people would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ohnson/608065/
It seems like the UK plan is not to try to avoid infections but to ensure as many people as possible are infected to achieve this so called "herd immunity". I think the inevitable deaths are a high price to pay for this.
The UK population is around 66 million. If as Vallance says about 60 percent become infected, as needed to achieve herd immunity it means that 36 million become infected. A very conservative estimate is a 1% death rate so you would expect 360000 deaths by following this "herd immunity" plan. In that case 250 thousand seems on the low side. |
I believe the majority of us are going to catch this at some point or other. It’s inevitable. More to the point, I assume that’s what the physicians advising the government believe. Certainly I can’t see any possible way of getting rid of the virus before it infects most of us.
If you accept that premise, then trying to shield the most vulnerable for as long as possible seems to make sense.
Personally I also think 1% will turn out to be an overestimate for the mortality rate, but I’m not married to the idea of arguing the toss since we’re all guessing on that score.