Nobody sensible is advocating going balls out for herd immunity, the only headcases in the discussion are those arguing for zero Covid. Interventions are of course necessary to prevent exponential spread, but the evidence from multiple countries suggests social distancing alone keeps the Rt low, and when social distancing is abandoned by a segment of the population Rt rises. All government interventions should be designed around emphasis on social distancing and facilitating same, as this is known to control Rt.
But eventual herd immunity is the only way out of this, achieved through the natural immunity those already infected have built allied with a vaccine or vaccines when they become available. Itâs the only way all viral diseases in history have been brought under control, the way the flu is brought under control every season. Itâs also an outright lie to say Sweden has pursued a herd immunity strategy, they havenât. Their stated strategy was to âpromote social distancing, protect the vulnerable, testing and contact tracing, and reinforce their health care systemâ. The only difference between them and most other western countries is they did not have a hard lockdown at any stage of the pandemic.
Spreading out infection is the only practical approach, by definition as zero Covid cannot be achieved. SARS-2 is a highly infectious air borne virus, there is zero possibility of stopping itâs spread, you can only slow itâs spread. Ultimately what is under discussion here is the validity and value of hard lockdowns, and I contend that lockdowns donât work for multiple reasons, and have done far too much damage to society to be pursued further. Yes they were justified in March due to exponential growth, but not since. The WHO themselves have said lockdowns donât work and should be abandoned.
The great experiment is not Sweden, the great experiment is continuing with lockdowns and what the results may well be. Thatâs not a nihilist position, nor am I a nihilist, but carry on calling me one if it pleases you.
again, can you provide a source for this. I havenât seen this backed up yet and canât find anything.
What Iâve seen is that the WHO said lockdowns arenât a silver bullet and should only be used when the rate of transmission in the community is out of control
Also, can you define what you deem a lockdown?
What Iâve seen from you and others is a continual undermining of any and all measures to stop the virus other than your simplistic wash your hands rhetoric.
All very sensible to be fair but weâre by no means the outliers as regards locking down society.
People may point that National restrictions such as Irelandâs do not exist but France has placed similar restrictions on areas of its Country with populations in excess of ours.
By lockdown I mean a stay at home order where people are asked to not leave their homes except for essential reasons, and businesses, schools and workplaces are closed except for essential services.
Have a listen to the Nabarro interview yourself and make your own mind up, itâs on youtube.
Also, washing your hands is not social distancing, you halfwit.
Iâve listened to the interview and nowhere did he say lockdowns should end or donât work. I think you should stop spreading that particular lie anyway
The WHO guy who visited Ireland recently was in big praise of the living with covid plan. Part of that plan is level 5.
Nabarro himself was edging towards moving to level 5 when he was here.
Not moving from Level 3 to Level 5 is risky, he added. It will be a month to six weeks before it will be known if that has been the âright pathway". Dr Nabarro pointed out that there has been real build-up of the virus in other parts of Europe and there is no reason to believe that Ireland is going to escape.
âIf youâre going to stay at Level 3 then please do everything to stop the spread of the virus,â he urged.
When did you change your tune on the WHO. You were scathing of their handling of this only a few months back, now youâre advocating them
Lockdowns donât work and should be abandoned because they do far too much societal damage than is justified. The WHO call for a middle ground response and lockdowns as a last resort. They were justified in March when the virus was spreading exponentially throughout the western world and we were unsure of how dangerous the disease was and how health care systems would hold up.
What is the justification for a lockdown now in Ireland as a âlast resortâ?
I was scathing of the WHO in January to March when they were lackeys of your pals the CCP and were hopelessly inadequate in their response to an evolving pandemic.
Community transmission was out of control, the tracing couldnât cope and the numbers were growing exponentially. Doubling every 2 weeks.
You refuse to accept the people making the decisions have more information than you on this. They donât make these decisions on a whim or with malicious intent.
You are adamant you know better.
I think that they could have held off on level 5 and given level 3 a chance, but that was risky. They looked at it and at the growth levels they saw potential for other essential services to be stopped because of Covid.
Thatâs not a great advert for the herd immunity approach. Only 1 in 5 people in a place where sick people go and are in close contact with not sick people in 8 or 9 months have antibodies.
If community transmission were out of control cases would be doubling every 2-3 days. For a lad who claims to have multiple degrees, you should go back and study what exponential growth is.
