[ad_1]
Image copyright
EPA
Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance were attacked at the start of the pandemic
As the UK introduces new restrictions on social contact to curb the spread of the coronavirus, controversy continues over whether the government had initially considered trying a very different approach.
At the start of the pandemic, the government’s top scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, spoke about “herd immunity” – the idea that once a sufficient population has been exposed to the virus, they will develop a natural immunity against it.
Both Sir Patrick and the government have insisted that this was never an official policy and that there was no delay in closing the county, as some critics have suggested.
Emails obtained by the BBC reveal the alarm among the government’s top scientific advisers at the reaction 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 herd immunity and delays in announcing a shutdown.
The material, obtained by the BBC through a Freedom of Information Act request, consists of all emails sent by Sir Patrick and England’s Medical Director Professor Chris Whitty from early February to early June. , which contain the words “herd immunity”.
‘Mild sickness’
There is no reference in any email until after March 13, when Sir Patrick spoke about herd immunity in various media interviews.
“Our goal,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that morning, is “to try to reduce the peak, not suppress it entirely, also because most people contract a mild illness, to develop some degree of herd immunity and protect people. most vulnerable. “
To many, his words seemed an unequivocal endorsement of herd immunity. They also seemed to explain the government’s reluctance to order the kinds of lockdowns and social distancing measures already in place in many other countries, despite increasing cases and troubling scenes in Italy’s hospitals.
Commuter stations were deserted at the height of closure
Speaking to Sky News on the same day, Sir Patrick spoke about not suppressing the virus completely, to help avoid “a second spike” and also to “allow enough of us who are going to have a mild illness to become immune to this. “.
When asked what proportion of the British population would need to contract the virus for herd immunity to be effective, she calmly replied “probably around 60%”.
With a fatality rate of about 1%, the interviewer responded, that would mean “a lot of people dying.”
At the time, there was no strong evidence that being infected with coronavirus would result in long-lasting immunity.
The following day, a group of more than 500 scientists published a joint letter, criticizing the lack of social distancing restrictions imposed by the government, adding that “betting on ‘herd immunity’ at this time does not seem like a viable option, as This puts the NHS under even greater stress, risking far more lives than necessary. ”
Image copyright
fake images
Boris Johnson flanked by his top scientific advisers at the start of the pandemic
In an email to Sir Mark Walport, former UK Chief Scientific Adviser, discussing the scientists’ letter, Sir Patrick suggests that the response message should be “Herd immunity is not strategy. Strategy is flattening the curve … and protecting the elderly … By doing this, we will see immunity grow in the community. ”
Sir Patrick seems clearly disturbed by the backlash to his use of the phrase.
‘Calm down’
In response to an email titled “Covid-19 and herd immunity” from an academic, he brusquely writes “No, it is NOT the plan.” However, it does not explain his earlier references to herd immunity.
The same weekend, he writes to a colleague, “Anything you can do to calm our academic friends about herd immunity will be greatly appreciated.”
Sir Mark Walport told the BBC that he believed the interviews had been misinterpreted.
Image copyright
PA media
Social distancing has been one of the main weapons against the virus
He suggested that what Sir Patrick had meant by saying that it was not desirable to completely suppress the virus was that it would be so “draconian and difficult to do that it would not be possible.”
Others, however, have suggested, despite denials, that “herd immunity” was indeed the strategy for a period of time.
The first public use of the term by a UK official appears to be in a BBC interview on March 11 with Dr David Halpern, executive director of the government-owned Behavioral Insights Team, known as the “unit of push “, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage).
He told the BBC: “You will want to protect the groups at risk from basically catching the disease and when they come out of their cocoon, herd immunity has been achieved in the rest of the population.”
However, emails obtained by the BBC confirm that herd immunity was under discussion as early as January.
In an April email, Professor Whitty talks to colleagues about a report in the Times newspaper, in which an anonymous senior politician says he had conversations with Professor Whitty in January that “were absolutely focused on herd immunity. “.
In the email, Professor Whitty complains that he has been misrepresented, stating that he never thought that herd immunity “was actually a sensible policy goal”, but suggested that the concept was discussed in answering “the questions that the ministers did. “
In another email to the president of the College of Public Health, which sets standards for healthcare professionals, who had raised questions about the lack of evidence, Professor Whitty insisted that “the government had never followed a ‘strategy of herd immunity ‘”.
In a statement, a government spokesman said the emails “make clear … herd immunity has never been a political objective.”
However, this is unlikely to end the controversy, especially given the lack of references to herd immunity ahead of Sir Patrick’s March 13 interviews.
Activists representing the families of some of those who died in the pandemic are calling for a public inquiry into the government’s response to the disease.
