The Barrington Declaration from the quadrangles of Yale, Stanford + Oxford: "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." (1) Er....No.
How long does immunity last?
Will herd immunity be achieved?
What about Long Covid?
Sweden tried this with 582 deaths/million, Norway 51 deaths/million didn't.
How practical is shielding 30% of the population? No data.
What are their death projections v economic benefits?
(2)
It seems odd that the countries who failed to tackle the pandemic effectively, which the Barrington people want, suffered the biggest economic hit. (3)
And what about the awful and unequal casualty rates in the poorest, BME and frontline worker groups who will suffer the consequences of a reckless, untested policy to 'take it on the chin'? (4)
Karl Friston's model suggests that LSHTM/Imperial/Academy of Medical Sciences projections of numbers of deaths in a second wave are way too high. But a functioning ‘find, test, trace, isolate, support programme’ will keep them even lower. (1) medrxiv.org/content/10.110… (pre-print)
Prepare now for a winter peak warned the Academy of Medical Sciences..."It estimates the number of COVID-19-related hospital deaths (excluding care homes) between September 2020 and June 2021 could be as high as 119,900." (2) acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/prep…
Davies, Kucharski et al from LSHTM state “We projected a median unmitigated burden of 23 million (95% prediction interval 13–30) clinical cases and 350 000 deaths (170 000–480 000) due to COVID-19 in the UK by December, 2021.” (3)
Colin Mathers, former coordinator of mortality and burden of disease statistics at WHO, raises challenging issues over ownership of global health data. (1) biomedcentral.com/epdf/10.1186/s…
He asks whether it is sustainable and politically acceptable for WHO to devolve data ownership and coordination to the Gates-funded Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at Univ of Washington in Seattle. (2) @richardhorton1@IlonaKickbusch@devisridhar@fgodlee
"The current (WHO) administration does not seem concerned that WHO reports are publishing inconsistent statistics from IHME and from UN Interagency Groups." (3)
The test and trace data from government is highly misleading. How many people are estimated to have the virus? We dont know. How many were missed by the tests? Don't know.
And why are PHE and local authority public health doing almost EIGHT times as much contact tracing as SERCO? 25,000 call handlers tracked only 10,000 contacts in 2 weeks. That's why they are twiddling their thumbs. At our expense.
The positive lab test results graph shows 300-400 positives per day for June 4-10. That adds up to about 2500 cases. Yet they say they received 5900 cases reported to test and trace. Where did the other 3400 cases come from?
A. 'Circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in 70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively.' (2)
B. 'The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response.' This suggests vaccine candidates should not simply focus on the spike protein. (3)
Recordings confirm that China was economical with the truth with WHO about COVID19 up until Jan 20. (1) theguardian.com/world/2020/jun…
“..exact same scenario (as SARS 2002,) endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on,” said Mike Ryan, head of emergencies. "The WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact given the issues that arose around transparency in southern China." (2)
“This would not happen in Congo and did not happen in Congo and other places,” he said, in early January, referring to Ebola. “We need to see the data. It’s absolutely important at this point.” (3)