Image copyright pyrite
EPA
At the beginning of the epidemic Pro. Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallans came in to predict the fire
U.K. With the introduction of new restrictions on social contact to prevent the spread of coronavirus, controversy continues as to whether the government initially thought of trying a very different approach.
At the outset of the epidemic, Sir Patrick Vallens, the government’s chief scientific adviser, spoke of “herd immunity” – once a sufficient population is exposed to the virus, they will develop a natural immunity for it.
Both Sir Patrick and the government have insisted that this is never official policy. The government also denies that some folk critics have said there was any delay in locking up the country.
Emails received by the BBC sound alarm among the government’s top scientific advisers over the response to Sir Patrick’s words.
In a March email, Sir Patrick asks for help to “calm down” academics who have expressed anger at his repeated references to livestock immunity and delays in announcing lockdowns.
The material, obtained by the BBC at the request of the Freedom Information Act, includes every email sent by Sir Patrick and the Chief Medical Officer of England, Professor Chris Whitty, containing the words “herd” from early February to early June. Immunity “.
‘Mild Illness’
There was no reference to an email until March 13, when Sir Patrick discussed mob immunity in numerous media interviews.
“Our aim,” she said on BBC Radio Our’s Today program that day, “try and lower the peaks – don’t suppress it altogether, because most people have a mild illness, so she has some kind of mild immunity, while Most protected. Sensitive “.
To many, his words seemed a clear confirmation of the mob’s immunity. He also appeared to explain the government’s displeasure at ordering such lockdowns and social distance measures in many other countries, despite the growing number of cases in Italian hospitals and alarming scenes.
Commuter stations were deserted at the height of the Commode
Speaking to Sky News the same day, Sir Patrick also spoke of avoiding “the second peak”, and not completely suppressing the virus, and “allowing enough of us to become mildly ill to become this immune system.”
When asked how many people in the British population need to be infected with the virus for animal immunity to be effective, he calmly replied “maybe around 60%”.
With a mortality rate of about 1%, the interviewer responded, meaning “terrible among the dead”.
At the time, there was no strong evidence that coronavirus infection leads to long-term immunity.
The next day, a group of more than 500 scholars published a joint letter criticizing the lack of social distance restrictions imposed by the government, adding that “going to this place for ‘animal husbandry immunity’ does not seem like a viable option, as it will be required. Put the NHS on a much stronger level of stress, putting many more lives at risk.
Image copyright pyrite
Getty Images
The epidemic was initially fueled by Boris Johnson, one of his top scientific advisers.
In an email to Sir Mark Walport, the UK’s former chief scientific adviser, discussing the scientists’ letter, Sir Patrick suggests that the response should be a message: “The mob is not an immune strategy. As we see the immune system growing in the community.
Sir Patrick’s reaction to the use of this sentence is clearly rhetorical.
‘Calm down’
In response to an email from an academic titled “Covid-19 and Bunch Immunity”, he hatefully wrote “No it’s not a plan.” However, she did not elaborate on her previous references to herd immunity.
That same weekend, he wrote to a colleague, “Anything you can do to calm our academic friends over the crowd’s immunity will be appreciated.”
Sir Mark and Wal Lapote told the BBC they believed the interview had been misunderstood.
Image copyright pyrite
P.A. Media
Social distance is one of the main weapons against the virus
When Sir Patt Trick said it was not desirable to completely eradicate the virus, he meant to make it so “hard and difficult that it could not be achieved”.
Others, however, have suggested, despite the denial, that “mob immunity” was indeed the strategy of the period.
The first public use of the term by a UK official is in an interview with the BBC on 11 March, the chief executive of the government-owned Behavioral Insights team, known as the “nudge unit”, and a member of the BBC. Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage).
He told the BBC: “You want to protect those endangered groups so that they don’t basically catch the disease and by the time they get out of their predicament, the rest of the population can get animal immunity.”
However, emails received by the BBC indicate that mob immunity was under discussion in early January.
In an April email, Prof. Whitty confessed to colleagues about a Times newspaper report – in which an unnamed senior politician said he had a conversation with Prophet Whitty in January that “the whole mob was focused on immunity”.
In the email, Pro Whitty complained that he had been misrepresented, saying he never thought mob immunity was “really a sensible objective of the policy”, but suggested that the concept be “answered when asked by ministers”. Was talked about.
Another email to the president of the public health faculty setting standards for health professionals – who raised questions about the lack of testing – pro. Whitty insisted that “the government has never adopted a ‘livestock immunization strategy’.
In a statement, a government spokesman said the emails “make it clear … mob immunity is never a policy objective”.
However, this controversy is unlikely to end, especially before the March 13 interview by Sir Perrick Trick, due to the lack of references to mob immunity.
Preachers representing the families of some of those who died in the epidemic are calling for a public inquiry into the government’s response to the disease.
