By slowing down rather than stopping the spread of infection the UK government are guaranteeing that the bulk of the population will become infected and the mortality rate for vulnerable people will stay the same, it will just happen more slowly.
The 'shut-down' policy was sold as an attempt to ensure NHS and other health services do not collapse under a 'short term' burden. They ordered the isolation of all elderly people and known cases of immune compromised chronic conditions, without any provision to protect them from the spread.
That theory was destroyed by the lack of PPE, shortages of trained staff, lack of other supplies, kit and logistical support which the Government was warned about, in detail, from Operation Cygnus in 2016 and throughout January 2020. All deliberate choices by this Government and it's predecessors.
The UK Government had time to prepare, they had the time to stop and check and quarantine the inflow of infected people from abroad, via air travel and cruises, and land be they immigrants, returning holiday makers or business travellers.
Merely slowing down the spread of infection is exactly what the Chinese, Koreans , Singaporeans and Taiwanese did NOT contemplate - they went for eradication - find every case, quarantine all contacts, treat everyone who is symptomatic in isolation hospitals, maintain vigilance, deal with outbreaks rapidly until no new cases emerge after two months.
This is an imperfect method, in that it cannot find every single case in one swoop. It is a method that takes time and resources, and importantly must be very well understood by the population that is infected and engaged with as such. Communication must be clear, exact, honest and 100% evidence based. Support for everyone affected must be provided by the State, in terms of resources, living wage income protection, treatment facilities and social welfare. It includes maintaining vigilance, so that even after a two month period of no new infection, the readiness to respond to a new infection remains active and agile. When we know the virus has no new hosts, say after 6 months, then we know that that particular virus has been eradicated. This is entirely possible. The only barrier is economic or political will."
Then we know the virus has no new hosts, and is eradicated.
Maintain vigilance, and maintain capacity to respond rapidly to every new outbreak to isolate it and eradicate that infection spread in that locality.
Slowing down was merely always a staging step towards eradication. It should never be set as a move on it's own.
The UK Government has no intent or policy of eradication of the virus in the population - this is insane, especially on an island.
Their decision is not based on epidemiology or public health - it is a purely economic political decision. Slowing down the spread, and what it means. Data modelling and behavioural sciences!
Slowly is ten thousand preventable, horrific deaths in two weeks and rising.
Slowly is grinding on in spite of avoidable shortages of PPE for front line health workers, and the attrition rate that has on frontline staff.
Slowly is interminable when there is no contact tracing, and no testing happening in the UK.
This is eugenics by default, straight up.
It is not intentional eugenics. They are not that evil.
It is not that they want us dead, it is that in order to protect their status and their material power and wealth (their assets) they will abandon the most vulnerable. (everybody else).
As in The Vatican hiding away abusers to protect their status. This is a well known pattern of behaviour.
The 'wanting us dead' narrative is hype, beloved of conspiracy theories and it tends to undermine effective understanding of the situation.
The reality is much worse, far more chaotic and random, and thus more tractable because the illusion of total control is an illusion - a theory if you will.
What does slowly mean, in a conservative estimate?
In the UK 10% of known immune compromised people (about 5 million) still means potentially 500,000 horrific deaths. slowly over a year. 10, 000 a week, sustained.
Is that acceptable?
No.
Is this a viable long term solution?
No.
Stopping the spread dead where ever it emerges, rapidly, is the correct protocol, at every stage of the spread of the infection - chase down every infection, trace and quarantine all contacts, offer treatment away from home, in isolation hospitals ,etc. until there are no new cases, and the virus cannot find any new hosts and it dies out.
THAT is the only viable solution - it will demand that full logistical and resource commitment to do that.
Is it worth a years GDP to do this?
I say it is.
Easily, It's worth ten years GDP.
Everybody's life matters.
Eradicate the virus by robbing it of new human hosts.
The PM, and the entire Cabinet needs to be arrested for malfeasance in public office and held on remand for the duration. Fired.
We need a government that will pursue stopping the spread, eradicating the infection from these islands, by robbing it of new human hosts, informed by epidemiology, public health practice, social welfare and trauma informed approaches. And that must exclude Keir Starmer, for obvious reasons.
We do not need a government operating on the basis of data modelling and behavioural sciences.
We need a Government that will pay the people to stay at home, no questions asked, for the duration. A government that will give the people clear, accurate, scientifically grounded information that the citizens can engage with as equals, as adults who are working together.
There is no vaccine. It is not on any horizon.
The infection and disease cannot be allowed to slow spread - in the UK there are 5,000,000 people with known immune compromised health conditions, the cost to those people is intolerable - if it costs three years GDP it would still be cheap by comparison.
It doesn't have to cost that much.
Eradication, if fully resourced, will take approximatley three months - the slow spread will take much, much longer.
Eradication is better for the people and the economy by all measures.
Ensure that in future outbreaks of a novel virus similar to this, the protocols to stop the spread, and
eradicate the virus by depriving it of new hosts, are implemented at pace, from the start.
I do not oppose Vaccines, and I do not accept that they are anything but a very last resort in cases such as the SARS and SARSCOV2 viruses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases
Selection of infectious diseases for eradication is based on rigorous criteria, as both biological and technical features determine whether a pathogenic organism is (at least potentially) eradicable.
The targeted organism must not have a non-human reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest), and/or amplify in the environment. SARS and SARSCOV-2 fit into this criteria.
This short paper discuss's the success of the shutting down of the SARS 2002-3 epidemic.
https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.001017.pdf
To not do it is a political /economic decision, not an epidemiology clinical practice decision.
Let the Herd take it on the chin, protect the Hoard, or deploy the Hoard to protect the Herd?
That is the basic honest question here.
Kindest Regards,
Corneilius
"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"
Thank you for reading this blog.
All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges.
The rest is easy.
All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges.
The rest is easy.
