Read on Twitter
Really worrying document from SAGE published, modelling 'population immunity'.
"When R is 1.1, only 9% of the remaining susceptible
population need to be infected for R to fall to 1, solely as a result of the natural dynamics of the epidemic"
Thread. https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1327626314564710406?s=20
"When R is 1.1, only 9% of the remaining susceptible
population need to be infected for R to fall to 1, solely as a result of the natural dynamics of the epidemic"
Thread. https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1327626314564710406?s=20
The document seems to discuss the idea of 'population immunity' - the hope seems to be that current measures will maintain the R at 1.1, until ~9% more of the population gets infected, which will lead to R dropping to 1, and cases plateauing.
Given this is approx the same proportion of the population that has been infected, and has resulted in >60K deaths across the UK, I wouldn't be characterising this as 'only 9%'. This scenario will lead to millions of infections, cases of LongCOVID, and thousands more deaths
The ONS estimates ~50K daily cases of COVID-19. It's very likely we will have 15-20K daily cases at least when we exit lockdown (in the best case scenario). This equates to 150-200 daily deaths among those cases (seen with a lag of 3-4 wks), and continuing to see >1000 deaths/wk.
This isn't a strategy. It's negligence.
It's going to have a hugely detrimental impact on public health, continue to overwhelm the NHS, disrupt routine care, disrupt education, and maximal economic impact through long-term need for restrictions
It's going to have a hugely detrimental impact on public health, continue to overwhelm the NHS, disrupt routine care, disrupt education, and maximal economic impact through long-term need for restrictions
There are so many countries across the world who have done this well. We have the resources to do the same- why have we rejected the strategies of countries like Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, Australia. Controlled viral spread through the population is not a strategy.
We may have a vaccine around the corner, but it will take months, if not a whole year to roll-out population wide (assuming high uptake, which may or may not happen). But none of this affects the need for a multi-pronged approach to control the virus now.
If anything, the optimism around a vaccine should re-emphasise the importance of really investing in control of the virus now. Every death is preventable, and this is what we should be striving to do- prevent further morbidity, and mortality from COVID-19.
Controlled spread is not a solution. Strategies of control by natural immunity have been rejected by almost all public health organisations.
Why does the UK govt appear to be considering a strategy that's been rejected by almost the entire scientific community?
Why does the UK govt appear to be considering a strategy that's been rejected by almost the entire scientific community?
Actually, someone correctly pointed out to me that SAGE isn't the govt, so we don't know if the govt is actually considering this. I really hope not.
The govt needs to urgently articulate what its post-lockdown strategy is. We recently made clear recommendations as to what a sustainable strategy could look like, based on evidence, and global experience.
We only have a few wks- what is the govts long-term plan?
We only have a few wks- what is the govts long-term plan?
