Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This idea that the primary aim of the UK Government is herd immunity is plain wrong.

You can understand people's confusion when the government have said, repeatedly, that they aim to create herd immunity.

https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea6...

> Britain’s chief scientific adviser stoked controversy on Friday when he said that about 40m people in the UK could need to catch the coronavirus to build up “herd immunity” and prevent the disease coming back in the future.

> Defending Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision not to follow other European countries by closing schools and banning mass gatherings, Patrick Vallance said it was the government’s aim to “reduce the peak of the epidemic, pull it down and broaden it” while protecting the elderly and vulnerable.

> But Sir Patrick told Sky News that experts estimated that about 60 per cent of the UK’s 66m population would have to contract coronavirus in order for society to build up immunity.

> “Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term,” he said. “About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

You just need to be down with doublespeak. They say one thing, but you have to understand that they meant something entirely different. To think otherwise would be to think that our leaders are either dishonest or incompetent - and because they are our leaders they cannot be either dishonest nor incompetent.

Therefore, you must adjust your comprehension.

Honestly, if their intent is as GP says, I’ve not seen it communicated - I’d love a source other than goodthink.

None of those quotes say they aim to create herd immunity. They just say you won't get herd immunity until about 60% are infected. There's a difference.

The government has changed from "containment phase" and is now in their "delay phase", and that means they think millions of people will become infected.

Patrick Vallence:

> ‘So our aim is to tray and reduce their peak – broaden the peak – not to suppress it completely. Also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some degree of herd immunity as well.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/13/millions-brits-get-coronaviru...

Herd immunity is a direct aim of the current phase of the government plan -- it has to be, because they think that covid-19 will become a seasonal illness.

https://www.ft.com/content/0475f450-654f-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6...

> The prime minister and his scientific advisers hope to manage the epidemic by “flattening the curve” of infection and delaying the peak until the summer, when the National Health Service will face less seasonal pressure.

> Then — or so the theory goes — enough people will have acquired resistance to Covid-19 to avoid a second wave of disease next autumn or winter. Downing Street believes that other countries that have taken draconian action now will be vulnerable later in the year.

> Mr Johnson’s strategy depends on building up the so-called herd immunity. If a high enough proportion has become resistant through Covid-19 infection, the virus will not have enough new people to catch and the epidemic will not be able to sustain itself. It will burn out.

> They just say you won't get herd immunity until about 60% are infected

But even this is wrong, or at least, unsure. Herd immunity relies on low (or zero) re-infection. It works for diseases like measles, where the risk of re-infection (after either infection or immunisation) is effectively zero.

We don't yet know if re-infection with covids-19 is possible or not.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock reiterated this morning in his BBC interview that this is not the government's main aim.

It is is a fun buzzword that officials have mentioned and some people have since obsessed about. Which is unfortunate as it really distracts from the real issues so it would be great if we could move on.

> some people have since obsessed about

The burden is on the government to better unify the messaging in a time of extreme uncertainty.

Sure and I didn't say those obsessives were to blame. In fact, I'm going to say blaming anyone is a waste of our efforts right now.

Edit, maybe by 'burden' you didn't mean 'blame', exactly. It is part of the government's job to communicate properly and it seems they didn't get it right. But we can accept that and now be open to the explanations of what they really meant. So we can get on with what matters.

I understand that there is confusion and seek to address it. The quotes provided come from the press which are spinning this in an inaccurate way and leading to letters such as this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com