From ‘herd immunity’ to today, Covid minimisers are still sabotaging our pandemic progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Northerner

Admin (Retired)
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
So, is that it? After wave upon wave of infections, the combination of vaccination and Omicron’s comparatively mild (though still serious) properties has led the UK to declare the pandemic, essentially, over.

After two lockdowns, a huge burden on healthcare and at last an extremely prompt and effective vaccination campaign, the UK has still registered more than 160,000 lives lost to the pandemic, roughly half of them in the Alpha wave.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, “herd immunity”, much like Godot, has stubbornly failed to arrive and expel the virus from the population. Nobody should be under any illusions that it could have been much worse. Poor Peru was hit by dreadful waves of infection before vaccines could be deployed; it has lost roughly three times as many people as the UK, accounting for population.

It should be astonishing given these facts, but some stubborn voices have continued to argue that in the autumn of 2020 we should have rushed to remove restrictions on all except those most at risk – who would be somehow saved by untested, implausible means gathered together under the heading of “targeted protection”. At that point no vaccines were widely available, and the effective therapies we now have against Covid were pie in the sky. Shockingly, there are now attempts to rehabilitate these ideas in parts of the media.


I'm not aware of any strategy to deal with any future variant, or introduce mitigations like improving ventilation etc. :(
 
We have Boris and his believers, the states had Donald and his believers, other countries had leaders, and no doubt they will be preparing though.
 
As bad as it might be there are, though, 33 countries with per-capita death rates higher than the UK and a new analysis from a couple of weeks back concluded that Britain’s 164,000 Covid-19 death toll may actually have been overestimated. Since the analysis was by The Lancet it would have to be considered credible.

Here if anyone fancies a read:-


So, the UK, around 2500 deaths per million, 163862 confirmed deaths overall.
New Zealand, around 50 deaths per million, 231 confirmed deaths overall.
 
Can't argue with your numbers but struggling to see what point you're trying to make.
Just wondering why you bothered disputing the UK death rate number, then quoted an article from the Lancet you say is credible claiming a higher number of deaths at 169000?
And there were 122 countries with a much better response.
New Zealand for one example.
Can't argue with your figures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I simply added something to the thread that I read about a few days ago, and which I thought might be relevant. I didn't expect to be taken to task for it. Silly of me to think something in The Lancet was credible. Don't know what I was thinking.
It is.
It's just doesn't say the figures you claimed them to be.
Just putting the correct ones on here.
I think that's relevant.
Silly of me to think that matters apparently.
Don't know what you were thinking either, but hey ho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top