"Herd immunity !" We are not bloody cattle.

I don't entirely dispute the theory that the population needs  to develop a so-called "herd immunity" (though we are not bloody cattle) to coronavirus,, but it is an incredible gamble and a callous one at best

The UK's plan to tackle the spread of coronavirus has been labelled as "risky" by a leading expert.

The Daily Record reports that.

Professor Ian Donald says Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan for the outbreak is based on the concept of "herd immunity", with the idea that low-risk people are meant to catch the virus. They then recover and have an immunity to it.
When enough people have this immunity it eventually limits the spread of the virus as it has fewer places to go.
This strategy is different from China, Korea, Italy and Singapore where they have tried to stop the virus spreading in a determined bid to suppress the epidemic rather than accept that it will inevitably spread.
Ian Donald, who works at University of Liverpool 's Institute of Population Health Sciences, said: “The government strategy on coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions.
"They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
“A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
“There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
“The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UK’s wants infection but of particular categories of people.
“The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible.
“Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection. That's herd immunity.
“Based on this idea, at the moment the government wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate.
“Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital equal the number leaving. That balance is the big risk.
“All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
“The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the government can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
“The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable.
“After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the government is aiming for and could achieve.
“But a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will.

“The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So they will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
“Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable.
“As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
“This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for Boris Johnson to have had any role in developing.”
Other experts have criticised the UK's strategy as they are not following World Health Organisation advice.
Some claim it is a "survival of the fittest" strategy that leaves vulnerable groups – such as the elderly, the infirm and those with weakened immune systems – at much greater risk.
Anthony Costello, the former director at the World Health Organisation, professor of international child health and director of the University College London Institute for Global Health, took to Twitter to take issue with the "herd immunity" plan.
He said: “Unlike all other countries, the UK strategy aims to build herd immunity by allowing the steady spread of Covid-19.
“The government argue it will block a second peak in several months time.  

 The Point I would like to make is that there is such a mentality that, it is going to see out loved ones die , because they are old or have an long term illness and it is our governments duty to protect us not treat them as cattle.


You can bet that certain people like the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh , who must be in the high range of being at list will get the best care and attention.

Not so your granny and and if this "herd immunity" theory is carried out it will be the already poor and vulnerable who will suffer.

We need a whole European and World approach to this crisis , and we need all nations to work to developing a vaccine and see that it is distributed FREE world wide. This is not the time for Big Pharma to make profits.

The Recombinant Interferon Alpha 2B (IFNrec), an antiviral produced by the Cuban biotech industry, is being used by Chinese doctors to treat patients infected by the 2019-nCoV coronavirus, which has affected more than 28,000 people and has killed 564 patients worldwide.

It would be criminal if we ignored this not only because of the USA blockade of Cuba but because it may not see profits for major companies.