"Matt Hancock is wrong about herd immunity"

https://unherd.com/2020/10/matt-hancock-is-wrong-about-herd-immunity/

by timthorn • 6 years ago

12 13 6 years ago

Hard to take the site seriously when it has a Marxist "Capitalism" section. Curate's egg.

Do you actually have any idea what Marx said or any of the idelogy, or are you simply using a word you heard online because they sounds scary? Nothing under that section seems to indicate a marxist leaning.

n4r9• 6 years ago

What's "Marxist" about the capitalism section? I had a look through some of the articles and it's left-leaning but I didn't get a sense that it was predominantly critical of the existence of capitalism.

sojournerc• 6 years ago

> Since the declaration last week, the Great Barrington Declaration has come under attack across the media, online (including Wikipedia and Google) from fellow academics as being part of a Libertarian conspiracy (my politics are not remotely libertarian) or being based in “pseudoscience”; others attempting to be less defamatory say that our views are “fringe”. The large number of serious scientists from top institutions taking part suggest otherwise. There are genuine good faith disagreements that must be aired and discussed — the impact on the world is too significant for us to fail to have this discussion in a serious way.

This has been frustrating this week. I appreciate the author's nuanced approach. It seems that fear has made many too irrational to actually listen to this group of scientists, or to even attempt understanding of the principles on which they base their recommendation.

devwastaken• 6 years ago

What are the basic principles on which they base their recommendation?

A statement by them a few days ago: "The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk"

There's a very obvious problem here. Those at high risk have to intermingle with everyone else, and most at high risk don't know that they are.

You don't just 'gain herd immunity'. You get the virus, be contagious, give it to anyone else you come in contact with, and they go out and do the same. People can't afford to quarantine and refuse it. People will not wear a mask, they don't care. Americans whom won't die from the virus will not take it seriously.

In reality barrington is advocating that people die. Which if they're doctors they've violated their do no harm promise - not that it ever meant anything.

As far as I can tell barrington has no leg to stand on. It doesn't matter if they're supposed 'experts', if they're right then they can prove it.

throwaways8852• 6 years ago

Isn't it cheaper to guarantee that high riskers can stay at home and self isolate? Far better than money printer go brr and likely economic implosion.

vinniejames• 6 years ago

most at high risk don't know that they are

This is not factually accurate. The majority of deaths are those 65+, most people in this group are aware of their age

tonyedgecombe• 6 years ago

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

This is the problem with the declaration. We can see from recent events in the UK that most of the transmission was amongst younger people but a couple of weeks later and it has spread to vulnerable parts of the population and the death rate is increasing.

taxicab• 6 years ago

You understand what you did here, right? You're complaining about not having your views taken seriously because people consider them ideology driven. Then, you immediate dismiss anyone who disagrees with those views because "fear has made many too irrational to actually listen to this group of scientists."

Just like there are good faith arguments for the proposal, there are also good faith arguments against it.

addicted2• 6 years ago

The first claim Dr Gupta addresses is clearly a strawman.

Hancock is clearly talking about herd immunity in the context of getting herd immunity through the spread of the virus itself, and not in the context of a vaccine.

It's also an extremely disingenuous argument. The author goes from talking about a society acquiring HERD immunity through infection, but does not actually find any evidence in the diseases mentioned of this happening, and instead says "In a nutshell, the development of immunity through natural infection is a common feature of many pathogens", switching suddenly to talking about personal immunity through natural infection.

She then posts a bunch of points about how we actually dont know whether we can achieve herd immunity naturally or not, or how far we are from it (which basically affirms Hancock's original point), but says that there is some evidence in the fact that the case rate curve has bent in many places.

However, many (if not all) places mentioned imposed some sort of intervention. Every one of them has promoted social distancing and mask wearing in addition. Further, her link points to Europe, where many countries are now seeing a massive resurgence of the virus, which seems to indicate that the drop had less to do with herd immunity (unless it's extremely short lived, which also makes the herd immunity solution non viable) and people relaxing social distancing rules and other measures as they get more lax, and/or need to congregate indoors more as it gets colder.

The Barrington proposal also defines harm as death. However, there is a lot of non death related issues that people who have survived the virus continue to suffer from. We also don't have any idea what the long term impact may be, and there are good reasons to believe that it may have significant long term impacts on many people in the group that is less likely to die.

Further, we are also fairly certain that the disease is airborne. So how do we ensure segregation of the vulnerable groups from the "non vulnerable" group when theoretically a member of the vulnerable group could be affected by simply breathing the air in a room 5 minutes after someone who was infected was hanging out in it.

Finally, there is a lot of good evidence that the herd immunity process will devastate the economy because people will voluntarily reduce their activity when the virus is spreading, so it won't even help with the problem it purports to solve.

The article does not present a good argument at all, and engages in sleight of hand more than presenting an actual argument (for example, they point out that the immunity is likely to be short term, but seems to think that just pointing that out is enough to now dismiss it, even though it completely undermines the whole herd immunity argument).

addicted2• 6 years ago

Here is the entire Declaration.

---- The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

"Matt Hancock is wrong about herd immunity"

Related Stories