The editor of The Lancet said quite explicitly that if we allow 60% of the population to get infected we'll see 400,000 people die.
I know that's what he said. What I am saying that that is not the strategy. When herd immunity was mentioned by Patrick Vallance he explicitly said it was about developing it among the healthy that would have a mild reaction to it and explicitly mentioned shielding the vulnerable. These 400,000 figures are taking into account 60% of
everyone getting infected. That's not what's being proposed here.
That's with a 1% overall death rate, which is actually a low estimate considering how fatal we know it is. We'd be very lucky to get the overall death rate that low even if the infection was spread out over a year.
You're way off. It's not low at all. Most uptodate models we have today have shown it actually might end up being less than 1%. Sage have said they fully expect it to be between 0.5-1%.
Right now you're basically saying it's government policy to let that happen while publicly denying it. Is that what you're saying?
Government has never said it's policy to en mass infect everyone in the country, sick, old and at risk. So yes they will deny that since it's not remotely true. It is however unquestionably government policy to build up immunity to ensure that we do not have a massive peak in the winter months. You know like those graphs I showed you that you totally ignored. Seems I'm addressing all of your points but you seem to be wilfully ignoring a lot of mine that are inconvenient for you to address.
It's been pointed out to you several times that herd immunity is no longer the strategy. The president of the WHO said today that even young people are getting hospitalised for weeks.
No, mitigation is no longer the strategy. I've corrected this misconception numerous times yet it keeps being ignored. And of course the young "can" be hospitalised from the infection. The young also "can" be hospitalised from flu. The young also "can" be hospitalised from wisdom teeth complications etc..point is were are talking about a extremely rare occurrence and every single piece of research unanimously backs that up.
Even a generous estimate for the herd immunity strategy is a 1% death rate, and Richard Horton said that Vallance was wrong with his initial approach.
As I pointed out above, 1% is not a generous estimation with the most uptodate figures we have. And the policy change was from mitigation to suppression. Herd immunity is not exclusive to either one and is actually stated as a factor in the success of either of them.
Are you still claiming the approach is to let 60% of people get infected? Do you accept that approach will result in ~40m infections and 400k deaths?
As was stated when herd immunity was mentioned, the strategy is to try and confine it to the healthy that will develope mild reactions to it and explicitly protect the vulnerable. The figures you're mentioning are also not in relation to herd immunity, they are in relation to unchecked mass infection that would occur in a mitigation policy.
Your going to go on about this forever aren't you, no matter how the facts roll out, no matter how many deaths happen, "should've done herd immunity shouldn't we".
What is this? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. I guess it might have sounded clever in your head but it comes across as incoherent rambling in text form.
I'd like to see your past examples and studies for how we have successfully implemented herd immunity for any disease without a vaccine, and without it killing a ton of people.
There are number of examples of it working in ringed cases. As for large scale cases such as this you'll excuse me for not having one at the ready given that the few times a pandemic such as this has occurred either immunity was not possible, vaccine or not, or herd immunity was not undertaken. As was the case with Spanish flu which is one of the leading reasons as to why a 2nd wave occurred and was in fact the deadliest wave of the outbreak. The flu was initially suppressed in the summer months but once restrictions subsided it came but strong in autumn and winter and killed millions. That's what is trying to be avoided here.
There is no way we can infect 90 percent of the percent of the population or however many people it requires for your fictional herd immunity, without it killing the majority of the at risk people.
Only thing fictional are your figures. Its 50-60%, not 90. And the goal is to shield the vulnerable through isolation and social distancing. Another example of fiction is this idea that the goal was to set the virus en mass on everyone in the country. That was never the case and was never presented as such.
We don't even know exactly who the at risk people are(specifically, we know demographically but even supposed young healthy people are getting sick from it, doctors are dying from it, you or I could be at risk from it).
We know with a pretty high degree who the at risk people so you are categorically wrong about that. Not sure what being young and getting sick from COVID-19 has to do with being high risk. Yes the young do get sick. That's not called being high risk. Being high risk means developing life threatening reactions to it. As for your point about doctors, that's a specialist case and is due to them being exposed to the virus on multiple occasions in such a short space of time. Of course that is going to have adverse effects on your health. And it's exclusive to just doctors. The average person is not going to be in a position to be infected by the virus multiple times in a day. Be rational
This is an new unknown virus, we still do not even know if you as an individual become immune to it if get it.
I find it funny when people bring this up but pin hope on a vaccine. You are aware that if we can't build up natural immunity to the virus than a vaccine is going to equally an ineffective, right? This is not an issue with herd immunity exclusively, it's issue with immunity in general. It's also not accurate. If individuals did not build up immunity to the virus then we would not be seeing the declines we have seen in Asia. That's beyond basic.
There's so much we don't know about this virus but lets just use our county as petri dish and test out some wacky theories like "everyone gets and it and everything's, fine" who knows we could even mutate a more deadlier form of it. But who cares its worth all the people dying to get our magical herd immunity(/s).
No one suggested any of what's in this paragraph. But given what you said in the rest of your post I'm not surprised you resort to cartoonish strawmen since they're easier for you to argue against the the actual points being made which seem beyond you.