- Messages
- 5,187
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- Not being able to eat as many chocolate digestives as I used to.
Talking to myself
After having done more reading and listening on this topic so that I'm a little more informed, it seems that the 'herd immunity' thing, whilst part of the broader conversation, is not at all government policy, but just an inevitability.
Well yes it probably is an inevitability from this point onwards and even essential in the longer term. The fundamental problem is that this level of immunity is usually attained through a vaccination program, not by primary exposure to the pathogen. There is a very big difference here.
There is no vaccine (yet) and with an expectation that 60% of the population need to become infected with a fatality rate of 1% the headline numbers do not make pleasant reading.
""If the mortality rate turns out to be the 1% many experts are using as their working assumption then that would mean 531,100 deaths. But if Whitty’s insistence that the rate will be closer to 0.6% proves accurate, then that would involve 318,660 people dying."" (source )https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...il-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised
And if it's true (as is being reported) that some 200 independent (doctors /scientists) professionals are petitioning to the government to change direction, why are they doing this? There's 1.4bn people in China but they didn't lose 0.6% of them to gain reasonable control?
I do not see any "cognitive dissonance" in this thread, I think people understand the issues very well.
Last edited: