Using herd immunity to fight COVID-19?

Watch
san_cisco
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/herd...-robert-peston

So this particular article explores the possibility of the UK government using herd immunity to contain the outbreak.

I'm honestly not sure whether this would be necessary or even fair, particularly since China has shown that containment is possible.

Apparently:

''Roughly-speaking – given what we know about the current infection rate of Covid-19 – the disease would need to infect approximately half of the UK population until we achieved herd immunity. Although over 80 per cent of Covid-19 infections are mild – that’d add up to more than six million people at risk of severe symptoms.''

What are people's thoughts?
Last edited by san_cisco; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Given that there’s a lot of cases of people being reinfected after recovering I don’t understand why they believe that recovery from the virus offers any immunity.
3
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Herd immunity like we had with people with measles before vaccines were put on everyone?
0
reply
2500_2
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by PQ)
Given that there’s a lot of cases of people being reinfected after recovering I don’t understand why they believe that recovery from the virus offers any immunity.
At this point the research believes the most likely reason for these is an issue with the testing producing false negatives.
0
reply
2500_2
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
Herd immunity like we had with people with measles before vaccines were put on everyone?
Herd immunity is what we get BECAUSE we use vaccines. If a sufficient % of the population is resistant to the virus it cannot take hold.
0
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by 2500_2)
Herd immunity is what we get BECAUSE we use vaccines. If a sufficient % of the population is resistant to the virus it cannot take hold.
When did we get vaccines for this covid virus?
0
reply
hotchocolate66
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by PQ)
Given that there’s a lot of cases of people being reinfected after recovering I don’t understand why they believe that recovery from the virus offers any immunity.
That's false. Research has shown that its producing false positive results.
0
reply
2500_2
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
When did we get vaccines for this covid virus?
We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
Read this post which I wholehearted agree with:


(Original post by Lionheartat20)
The alternative to attempting to wipe this out and stop the spread of disease by aggressive quarantine is to achieve herd immunity. The latter is effectively Boris Johnson's Policy. That will take around 80-95% of the population to build immunity to the illness. For a highly infectious disease, this is closer to the 95% e.g. Measles.

Therefore Boris is saying we'll take the hit and let's get 90% of the country infected and we will then be immune. Albeit spread it out over 3 or 4 months to try to give the NHS some breathing room.
This would be estimating 45-55 million people within the UK to be infected. Resulting in deaths of around 500,000 within the U.K. The legality of accepting deaths to aim for herd immunity is highly questionable in the name of gross negligence manslaughter, which I have seen raised elsewhere already.

I would rather take the Chinese approach (and the rest of the World) and shut down infrastructure / quarantine etc. They'll get a vaccine eventually which gets around the whole herd immunity / re-infection into society problem. Their approach avoids intentionally killing 1% of our population whilst we might get a slightly better GDP U.K. economic figure for our extra deaths.

#Hugely Cynical of UK Approach

Source confirming that we plan to happily allow most of our population to be infected: https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-...3-fe4680ea68b5
If the link is restricted, use our favourite search Engine with phrase "UK herd immunity coronavirus" and 3rd option down is FT, which gave me free access to the article in full.

No wonder we aren't bothering with FFP3 masks in A&E. The whole intention is to get the infection.....
0
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by 2500_2)
We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.
but you said measles were due to the vaccine but that isn't the case with real herd immunity plus this virus has people claiming it would mutate anyway.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by ecolier)
Read this post which I wholehearted agree with:
I'm just imagining 'covid-19 parties' now :lol: Doesnt quite have the same ring as chicken pox parties though..
0
reply
hotchocolate66
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
You guys really need to stop. At this point almost everyone's is going to get the virus as it's highly contagious. Sitting at home and stopping the entire working of an entire country and peoples lives is foolish because the flu is here to stay and the vaccine will take months.
At this point you just need to take its it is and not listen to the mass hysteria caused by fake "experts" and the media who is yet to tell us how many people are recovering from it.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by 2500_2)
We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.
Risky yes. But totally inevitable. We can stat indoors for a month but when we come out the virus will still be out there waiting to start infecting us again. We just need to accept that one way or other most of us are going to get it.

The question for leaders is how to make the inevitable happen in the most managed way.
0
reply
hotchocolate66
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
Risky yes. But totally inevitable. We can stat indoors for a month but when we come out the virus will still be out there waiting to start infecting us again. We just need to accept that one way or other most of us are going to get it.

The question for leaders is how to make the inevitable happen in the most managed way.
So true
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by san_cisco)
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/herd...-robert-peston

So this particular article explores the possibility of the UK government using herd immunity to contain the outbreak.

I'm honestly not sure whether this would be necessary or even fair, particularly since China has shown that containment is possible.

Apparently:

''Roughly-speaking – given what we know about the current infection rate of Covid-19 – the disease would need to infect approximately half of the UK population until we achieved herd immunity. Although over 80 per cent of Covid-19 infections are mild – that’d add up to more than six million people at risk of severe symptoms.''

What are people's thoughts?
I am not a doctor or a public health expert but I think it would have been better to have drawn peak Covid-19 to occur soon. That way, we can have the current outcomes like China.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
It’s aligfly unfair to say China did this, so we should as well.

The government in China is much more authoritarian for one so its easier to lock down cities, moreover due to this when thr Chinese government tell their population to do something they tend to obey. Plus we are more selfish than that, we will still go out to get food and other stuff as well.

Aggressive Quarantine would only work if the population is willing and thr country has the means to pull it off. We don’t really, so we need a different strategy.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by ecolier)
Read this post which I wholehearted agree with:
This is exactly my view on this. The advances in pathogen genomics means that a vaccine for Covid-19 is totally feasible in a fraction of time that it would have been even in the relatively recent past. You don't need to be a skilled epidemiologist to work out that delaying widespread infection by whatever means necessary for the relatively short time before an effective vaccine can be developed and produced is the right thing to do: not, as your quoted post says, have some 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

I'd like to see Boris Johnson have to choose who gets the ventilator.
0
reply
2500_2
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I am not a doctor or a public health expert but I think it would have been better to have drawn peak Covid-19 to occur soon. That way, we can have the current outcomes like China.
With a high short peak you get it over quicker and the impact on your economy is less, but your health care system struggles and as a result more people (predominantly the older and already sicker) die. There's not really a win-win solution.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Reality Check)
I'd like to see Boris Johnson have to choose who gets the ventilator.
They are probably already stockpiling available ventilators for Tory donors, billionaires, government ministers and senior civil servants, in that order. Most big Tory donors are Russian oligarchs (or their spouses), or offshored, so that's only right and proper.

The term 'herd immunity' is being grossly misused by Johnson and the so-called 'expert's he is using to front for him. Herd immunity is achieved via mass vaccination. Mass infection is a pandemic and any consequent general immunity will be built up by killing hundreds of thousands of people.
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by 2500_2)
With a high short peak you get it over quicker and the impact on your economy is less, but your health care system struggles and as a result more people (predominantly the older and already sicker) die. There's not really a win-win solution.
I agree. I think a decision has to be made as soon as possible.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (228)
33.78%
No (447)
66.22%

Watched Threads

View All