Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s a single scientific fact answering a direct question asked. I don’t see where he advocates carelessly opening up the economy and tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of excess deaths.

The UK has to acknowledge that, for various reasons, Germany have controlled this better and are well placed to continue to do so. The UK has 10% of the recorded global deaths, and even then we are calling 40,000 the reduced figure of 20,000.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You just love arguing don't you. As he was refering to herd immunity how would you expect it to happen? Continued lockdown?

If he thought herd immunity was impossible don't you think he would have answered that direct question about a single scientific fact with a NO!

Notwithstanding your expertise as an economist and virologist what would you do to balance both the economy and the nations health?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No real interest in arguing, or reading your childish insults as it's obvious I'm simply being baited to try and get me banned.

Herd immunity through vaccination is much more likely - the question is how to get from here to there over the next 12/18 months. Indeed, even those who believe in British exceptionalism have to note that's the stance of our own Chief Medical Officer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9478856.html

We aren't obliged to trade off the nations health against the economy - both are achievable if governments around the world are willing to use the right levers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps you should stop biting then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think you are correct but that's just my opinion.
No-one asked should we go for it but he did put forward some very good points without ruling it out.

1. To achieve herd immunity we need 60-70% of the population to carry antibodies to the virus.

I think everyone can agree with that.

2.It assumes complete mixing of the population, but there are reasons – in part to do with the social networks people form – why the whole population may not be available for infection at any given time.

They won't be available if in lockdown. Add in 6 degrees of separation and social networks are negated.

3. Networks shift, and new people are exposed to the virus. Such effects can drive waves of infection.

See the answer to 2.

4. Another factor that could impact herd immunity is whether other coronaviruses – those that cause the common cold, for example – offer protection to this one. We don’t know, but it’s possible.

If they do or not does not negate if herd immunity is possible or achieveable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We all know that letting tens of thousands of people die achieves herd immunity. Indeed, Imperial College London put it at 250,000 deaths.

Nobody has disputed that the concept exists - merely the irresponsibility of achieving it by allowing the virus to spread through in an uncontrolled way.

The UK is in for a rolling period of various stages of lockdown and social isolation measures for the remainder of the year. There's no scientific rationale to deviate from this unless there is a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If we can't get a vaccine what then?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no policy to let herd immunity just happen. It can only really happen with a vaccine. It is a population state where those who can't or haven't been vaccinated are less likely to get the disease.
Those people need herd immunity to exist or they are at constant risk. I think that covers most of the 1.5m people who are currently "shielding" from the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one, as far as I know, has ever advocated that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your plan would wreck the economy. For some perverse reason you either think that's a good thing or it doesn't matter.

Or maybe you are working for the Russians to spread alarm and desponency!

---------- Post added at 01:54 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

You have no interest in arguing because you don't have answers that address your daft comments, jfman.

I don't want to see you banned, but would welcome a proper debate with you to try to understand your views, which seem very strange and perverse to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And workable vaccines don't just turn up that quickly out of thin air as it is likely to take a minimum of 18 months and could even be longer then that and even after that you must industrialise production and then vaccinate the whole population which could take another year.

There is also the added possible problem that some countries might try to exert power to corner it for their own country first.

The Ebola vaccine took a lot longer then 18 months

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/07/...ebola-vaccine/

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/A...ne-development

Re: Coronavirus
 

jfman's views seem to me pretty much aligned with the UK's and indeed most Governments' views on this subject. He does not come across to me as the outlier on this debate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

By that "logic", HMG/BJ are maybe working for the Russians to spread alarm and despondency, because jfman is saying the same things as they are.

Perhaps you are working for Vladimir, trying to collapse the NHS by ending lockdown early, OLD BOY - or should we call you старый мальчик? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris Johnson to make a Downing Street statement in the next few minutes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I won’t even try to hide the fact I’m anti-Tory and anti-Boris.

But he tried and in my opinion failed spectacularly to “fire up the country” by attempting to sound very “Winston Churchill”. Still he is the PM so let’s see how it goes.