Finland considers controlled herd immunity: HUS infections chief calls for healthy groups to be exposed to virus to spread immunity

‘We should try and allow exposure to the virus by those in the population for whom it is least likely to be dangerous, such as children, young people and adults. And try and keep older sections of the population away from the illness,’ Järvinen said. Without immunity building, Järvinen warned that the health system could be overwhelmed if restrictions continue into the autumn.

Read here (Utiset, April 23, 2020)

How did Britain get its coronavirus response so wrong? Three factors

Lack of long-term planning and ignoring experts: ‘When the investigations into the UK’s response to Covid-19 come to be written, there is widespread recognition among experts that this lack of long-term strategic planning will be at the centre of it. So too should be the need to ensure that the views of experts are fed into government more efficiently and widely.

Going on its own: ‘Britain was still doing quite well in containing the disease by testing, tracing contact and setting up quarantine for those suspected of being infected with Covid-19 at this time [February]. “Then, in March, the government decided to abandon this approach and shift from containing the disease to delaying its progress,” says Wingfield. “I would really like to know why the decision to give up testing and contact tracing was taken.”

Absence of social memory of epidemics: ‘One conclusion that experts are already drawing is that it was those countries close to China, with memories of Sars, or cultural ties to their neighbour, which were much faster to act in response to Covid-19. Perhaps most notable in its success was Taiwan...’

Read here (The Guardian, April 18, 2020)

Stanford study finds presence of Covid-19 may be 50 to 85 times higher than official figures

‘The study [not peer reviewed yet] has been interpreted by some to mean we are closer to herd immunity – the concept that if enough people in a population have developed antibodies to a disease that population becomes immune – than expected. This would allow some to more quickly get back to work, a strategy currently being deployed in Sweden. But researchers behind the study said not to jump to conclusions or make policy choices until more research has been done.

‘The study confirms the widely-held belief that far more people than originally thought have been infected with the coronavirus, said Arthur Reingold, an epidemiology professor at UC Berkeley who was not involved in the study, but it doesn’t mean the shelter-in-place order will be lifted any time soon.’

Read here (The Guardian, April 17, 2020)

Mathematical modelling, "herd immunity" and the resultant failure of "test, test, test" in Britain

‘According to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal, the dominant voices in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), the scientific expert group advising the government, were mathematical modellers and behavioural scientists, including [David] Halpern...

‘Testing, isolation and quarantine – basic public health interventions – were barely on the agenda. Warnings from Chinese scientists of the severity of Covid-19 had not been understood.

‘“We thought we could have a controlled epidemic. We thought we could manage that epidemic over the course of March and April, push the curve to the right, build up herd immunity and that way we could protect people,” said Horton. “The reason why that strategy was wrong is it didn’t recognise that 20% of people infected would end up with severe critical illness. The evidence was there at the end of January.”

‘Anthony Costello, a UK paediatrician and former director of the WHO, also fiercely criticised the decision to stop tests. “For me and the WHO people I have spoken to, this is absolutely the wrong policy,” he said. “The basic public health approach is playing second fiddle to mathematical modelling.”

Read here (The Guardian, April 1, 2020)