Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

This forum is to discuss general things concerning TSOI.
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

UK: Tensions rise as coronavirus sceptics protest in London

Aug 29, 2020


trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Thousands of anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown protesters gathered in London's Trafalgar Square to demonstrate against the latest coronavirus restrictions.

Sep 20, 2020

trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Clashes erupt as thousands attend anti-lockdown protests in London

Sep 26, 2020


trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Demonstrators in Melbourne clashed with police on Saturday after protesting the city's strict lockdown rules.

Sep 5, 2020


trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Many anti-lockdown protesters believe the government is illegitimate. Their legal arguments don’t stand up

September 27, 2020 4.02pm EDT


https://theconversation.com/many-anti-l ... and-up-146

Lockdown has been particularly hard in Victoria and some dissent against restrictions is to be expected.

While it might be easy to dismiss the anti-lockdown protesters by calling them selfish or deluded, we should not lose sight of just how far beyond our normal expectations of civic responsibility the last six months have taken us.

By and large, most Victorians have been exceptionally responsible and stoic. And while police enforcement has been problematic at times, regulatory requirements often unclear and emergency powers unlike anything we’ve seen in a century, the vast majority of Victorians, indeed all Australians, continue to trust the actions of governments are reasonable and constitutionally valid.

Not everyone agrees, however, with this proposition.

In recent weeks, there has been an increase in social media traffic asserting the lockdown measures — and indeed our legal institutions themselves — are unlawful and unconstitutional.

These arguments — some inspired by the “sovereign citizen” movement — are also showing up in online forums, the courts and the streets.

Some of these protesters argue, for example, that all laws passed since November 18, 1975, in Victoria are invalid because Queen Elizabeth did not personally sign off on the new state Constitution.

Another argument is the Victorian courts have no vested authority because the oath each judge takes is not addressed to the queen using her proper title, or at all.

These are strong accusations. But are they true?

How our system of government works

To address this question, it is important to start with some general principles of law.

In Australia, we are governed by a blend of constitutional styles: a federation of states (like the US) but in a Westminster setting (like the United Kingdom).

The Constitution gives federal parliament in Canberra power over a range of specific matters (defence, customs, immigration), with the rest largely left to the states (including law enforcement).

However, the federal government has most of the money, and can therefore exert influence over policies dealing with education, health and the environment, all of which fall outside of its lawmaking mandate.

We have very few constitutionally protected legal rights. Fortunately, we have a rich tradition of legal conventions and common law principles that underpin our democratic processes.


Most people, however, do not understand these complexities. And that leaves many angry and frustrated.


The rise of the “sovereign citizen” movement — which purports to reclaim the law for the individual — is entirely understandable. But this does not mean that its proponents are correct.
The central document that sets out our political system is the Commonwealth Constitution, which is augmented by state constitutions.
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Covid alert level: Greater Manchester 'fighting back' against Tier 3

Published

21 hours ago


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54557823


Greater Manchester is "fighting back for fairness" and will "stand firm" against government plans to move it into the highest level of Covid measures, the mayor has said.

Labour Mayor Andy Burnham said local leaders were "unanimously opposed" to the introduction of "flawed and unfair" Tier 3 rules.

But the health secretary said they must "set aside party politics".

Meanwhile, other parts of England will move into Tier 2 from Saturday.

Measures under Tier 3 - a very high alert level - include pub closures and a ban on household mixing indoors, in private gardens and in most outdoor venues.

Mr Burnham said they would amount to a "punishing lockdown" without "proper support" for the people and businesses affected.

What are the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 lockdown rules?
Gym fined for refusing to close in Covid shutdown
Circuit-breaker lockdown 'likely for Wales'

Ministers "are asking us to gamble our residents' jobs, homes and businesses and a large chunk of our economy on a strategy that their own experts tell them might not work," he told a press briefing.

"Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region and Lancashire are being set up as the canaries in the coal mine for an experimental regional lockdown strategy as an attempt to prevent the expense of what is truly needed."

He added: "This is an important moment. Greater Manchester will stand firm. We are fighting back for fairness and for the health of our people in the broadest sense."

But Health Secretary Matt Hancock said local leaders should "set aside party politics" and work with the government, with cases rising "exponentially" in the north west of England.

"This is a time for people to come together so that we can control this virus," he said.

He added that an "unprecedented package of support" has been put forward, and that the government favoured a regional approach to restrictions because "there are different levels of virus in different parts of the country".

Earlier, he told MPs that discussions with local leaders "in Greater Manchester, in Lancashire, and elsewhere" were ongoing - including "what financial support is needed".

Andy Burnham and other leaders in Greater Manchester are clearly furious that more support isn't on the table for the area.

They are standing firm against the government's plans.

The decision here ultimately lies with central government - they don't need the agreement of local politicians.

But they desperately want it. Ministers have been stung by accusations they are treating the north of England differently to the south, and want to share some responsibility for extra measures.

At the moment, that seems some way off in Greater Manchester.

Discussions continue over whether Lancashire moves into Tier 3.

At the moment, local leaders are unsure over whether a final decision will be made tonight.

Under the chancellor's Job Support Scheme, which replaces furlough at the start of November, workers at firms told to shut because of coronavirus rules over the winter will receive at least 67% of their pay from the government.

However, leaders in Greater Manchester said they want an 80% furlough scheme for all affected workers, 80% income support for the self-employed and a "proper compensation scheme for businesses".

"They have said there's no money left, there's no money for them to put on the table. But, to be honest with you, I don't believe that for one second," Mr Burnham told reporters.

What Covid tier is my area in?
What are the rules in Tier 2 and Tier 3?
Why is Liverpool alone in top tier restrictions?

Asked whether he was concerned about the public health implications of not moving to Tier 3, he said local leaders "will take every step necessary" to stem the spread of Covid-19 and "wait for further engagement" with the government.

What are the different alert levels?


The new three-tier system sees every area of England classed as being on medium, high or very high alert - also known as Tiers 1 to 3, respectively.

Medium alert means areas are subject to the national restrictions currently in force, including the rule of six on indoor and outdoor gatherings and the 22:00 closing time for pubs, bars and restaurants.

In addition to these restrictions, in areas on high alert - including north-east England, much of the North West and parts of the Midlands, along with West and South Yorkshire - different households are not allowed to mix indoors.

Areas on very high alert - at present, the Liverpool City Region - face extra curbs, with different households banned from mixing indoors or outdoors in hospitality venues or private gardens.

People from different households can still meet in certain outdoor public spaces, such as parks, beaches, the countryside, forests, public gardens, allotments, outdoor sports facilities and playgrounds.

Pubs and bars will be closed unless they are serving substantial meals and there is also guidance against travelling in and out of the area.

Further restrictions may be agreed for particular regions in the top tier and in the Liverpool City Region gyms, leisure centres, betting shops and casinos have also been forced to close.
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Anti-lockdown protesters clash with police in Dublin

4 days ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 85870.html
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

No, the WHO Didn’t Change Its Lockdown Stance or ‘Admit’ Trump Was Right

“The World Health Organization just admitted that I was right. Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself.”

- President Donald Trump, in a tweet, Oct. 12


https://khn.org/news/fact-check-world-h ... was-right/


On Monday, President Donald Trump claimed that the World Health Organization (WHO) “admitted” he was correct that using lockdowns to control the spread of COVID-19 was more damaging than the illness.

In a post on Twitter, Trump wrote: “The World Health Organization just admitted that I was right. Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. Open up your states, Democrat governors. Open up New York. A long battle, but they finally did the right thing!”

He reiterated his statement later that night during a campaign rally, saying, “But the World Health Organization, did you see what happened? They just came out a little while ago, and they admitted that Donald Trump was right. The lockdowns are doing tremendous damage to these Democrat-run states, where they’re locked out, sealed up. Suicide rates, drug rates, alcoholism, deaths by so many different forms. You can’t do that.”

Together, the tweet and these comments got considerable attention on social media.

But did the WHO change its stance on lockdowns or concede anything to Trump, as he said it did? Briefly, no.

Since May, Trump has been vocal about asking states to reopen businesses, schools, religious services and other social activities. He also took credit for locking down the U.S. in the early stages of the pandemic, however. And his administration largely delegated lockdown decisions to governors and local governments.

Yet those lockdowns — marked by stay-at-home orders and other restrictions — have been less stringent than those implemented in other countries, said Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University.

The “definition has differed country by country and state by state. I would argue that the U.S. has never had an actual enforced lockdown like there have been in some Asian countries and in Italy last spring,” Nichols wrote in an email.

We reached out to the Trump campaign and the White House to ask for more information about Trump’s assertion but didn’t receive a response.

A Clip Doesn’t Tell the Full Story

Although the Trump team didn’t get back to us, we noticed that the Trump War Room Twitter account responded to Trump’s tweet with a link to a video, appearing to back up the president’s claim.

The video is a clip from an Oct. 8 interview with Dr. David Nabarro, a special envoy on COVID-19 for the WHO, by Scottish journalist Andrew Neil. The segment was televised by the British news outlet Spectator TV.

In response to a question about the economic consequences of lockdowns, Nabarro said: “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted. But by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Nabarro then went on to describe potential economic consequences, including effects on the tourism industry and farmers or the worsening of world poverty.

We checked with Nabarro to find out if the clip accurately reflected the points he raised during a nearly 20-minute interview. He responded, by email: “My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent.”

That context Nabarro mentioned covered a range of topics, such as the estimate that about 90% of the world’s population is still vulnerable to COVID-19, that lockdowns are only an effective pandemic response in extreme circumstances and what Nabarro means when he talks about finding the “middle path.”

“We’re saying we really do have to learn how to coexist with this virus in a way that doesn’t require constant closing down of economies, but at the same time in a way that is not associated with high levels of suffering and death,” Nabarro said in the interview.

To achieve that via the middle-path approach, robust defenses against the virus must be put in place, said Nabarro, including having well-organized public health services, such as testing, contact tracing and isolation. It also involves communities adhering to public health guidelines such as wearing masks, physical distancing and practicing good hygiene.

So, it’s really not accurate for the president to imply that the WHO has or has not supported lockdowns, said Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University. It’s not as simple as an either-or choice.

“No one is saying that lockdowns should never be used, just that they shouldn’t be used as a primary or only method,” Gostin wrote in an email.

And Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF, said both the WHO and public health experts have acknowledged there are economic consequences to lockdowns. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

“Strict lockdowns are best used sparingly and in a time-limited fashion because they can cause negative health and economic consequences,” said Michaud. “That is why Nabarro said lockdowns are not recommended as the ‘primary’ control measure. Critics like to frame lockdowns as being recommended as the only measure, when in reality that is not the case.”

Has the WHO Flipped on Its Stance on Lockdowns?

And what about Trump’s assertion that the WHO had changed its position and admitted he was right?

A member of the WHO media office told us in a statement, “Our position on lockdowns and other severe movement restrictions has been consistent since the beginning. We recognize that they are costly to societies, economies and individuals, but may need to be used if COVID-19 transmission is out of control.”

“WHO has never advocated for national lockdowns as a primary means for controlling the virus. Dr. Nabarro was repeating our advice to governments to ‘do it all,’” the spokesperson said.

To test this premise, we looked at statements by WHO leaders over the course of the pandemic. In the multiple media briefings we reviewed from February onward, the WHO appeared consistent in its messaging about what lockdowns should be deployed for: to give governments time to respond to a high number of COVID-19 cases and get a reprieve for health care workers. Although WHO leaders in February supported the shutting down of the city of Wuhan, China, the presumed source of the COVID-19 outbreak, they have also acknowledged that lockdowns can have serious economic effects, and that robust testing, contact tracing and physical distancing are usually preferable to completely locking down.

There is also no evidence the WHO “admitted” Trump was right about lockdowns.
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Fauci calls coronavirus herd immunity approach ‘nonsense, very dangerous’

Fauci predicted many avoidable deaths as a result of herd immunity


10/16/20

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-co ... n-nonsense


Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, on Thursday called herd immunity and implications from The Great Barrington Declaration “nonsense and very dangerous,” when it comes to stopping the spread of coronavirus in the U.S.


The comments arose when Daniel Klaidman, editor in chief at Yahoo News, questioned whether herd immunity is a viable strategy in the U.S., citing The Great Barrington Declaration and reports that some White House officials are embracing the approach, namely Dr. Scott Atlas who is on the coronavirus task force.

The Declaration, penned by professors at Harvard, Oxford and Stanford universities, calls for “focused protection” by letting young, low-risk populations carry on with their lives and naturally becoming infected while protecting those at high risk.

"As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity," authors wrote.

Fauci agrees with certain tenets of the Declaration, like avoiding lockdowns and protecting the vulnerable, however he said the document has other implications.

He estimated that about one-third of the population is vulnerable to serious complications from COVID-19 disease, arguing it would be impossible to protect these people who live outside of nursing homes. They are the elderly, the obese and those with underlying conditions like heart disease and diabetes. (The Declaration proposes using staff with acquired immunity, minimal staff rotation and frequent PCR testing of others in the facility.)

“Quite frankly, that is nonsense and anybody who knows anything about epidemiology will tell you that that is nonsense and very dangerous,” Fauci said, predicting that the approach would cause many avoidable deaths.

He said while a "certain core group of people" might be advocating for herd immunity, "talk at standard people" across the country with an understanding of infectious diseases and epidemiology would “vehemently disagree with the idea of letting everybody get infected and don’t worry about it.”

Fauci's condemnation of a herd immunity approach on Thursday comes days after the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, dismissed proposals for the strategy as "simply unethical." He noted that to obtain herd immunity from a highly infectious disease such as measles, for example, about 95% of the population must be immunized.
trader32176
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity - Herd Immunity vs. Lockdowns

Post by trader32176 »

Dr. Fauci Tells Americans to 'Bite the Bullet and Sacrifice' Thanksgiving

Oct 15, 2020


https://pjmedia.com/columns/stacey-lenn ... g-n1059761


First, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield warned that sharing Thanksgiving dinner indoors with a group of loved ones was very, very dangerous. Now, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Mendacious Midget™, is joining the chorus. In an interview with Norah O’Donnell on CBS News, the media darling said the following about the holiday:

That is unfortunately a risk, when you have people coming from out of town, gathering together in an indoor setting. It is unfortunate, because that’s such a sacred part of American tradition — the family gathering around Thanksgiving. But that is a risk.

Given the fluid and dynamic nature of what’s going on right now in the spread and the uptick of infections, I think people should be very careful and prudent about social gatherings, particularly when members of the family might be at a risk because of their age or their underlying condition… You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering, unless you’re pretty certain that the people that you’re dealing with are not infected.

It is impossible to express the level of disdain I have for this man. The Mendacious Midget™ has been all over television, speaking out both sides of his mouth for months. As an example, early in the pandemic, Fauci said public masking would do absolutely no good. In fact, he said that improper use could cause infection. Now, if you don’t wear one between bites while eating at an outdoor restaurant, you are trying to kill grandma.

Still, he is ubiquitous on television and radio, complete with leisure magazine covers. One could believe Fauci is enjoying his notoriety, with attention lavished on him largely because he is a foil to President Trump. To maintain that position, he often uses weasel words to avoid the president’s wrath.

However, the biggest problem I have with Dr. Fauci is what he doesn’t say. I first became furious when he would not give the obvious scientific rationale for optimism about a combination treatment with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. It took me about thirty minutes on the internet to figure it out.

Dr. Fauci is an expert. Yet he still fails to explain what the most common COVID-19 test, the PCR, actually tests for. It is not a live virus. Instead, it tests viral RNA. According to an analysis by The New York Times, up to 90% of tests pick up viral debris or virus levels incapable of causing an infection or being transmitted. This makes the 8 million “cases” more like 800,000.

This could be remedied by changing the way tests are conducted and reducing the number of times the specimen is amplified. Or reporting the number of amplifications so doctors can make a more accurate assessment. This has not happened.

This has prompted the CDC to discourage retesting. According to their website, a recovered patient can still test positive for 90 days. It is why Dr. Fauci uses weasel words to discuss President Trump’s recovery. While news anchors push retesting, he knows it is of no value. But if he says that, he will need to explain the dirty little secret about PCR testing,

Likewise, Fauci has been dishonest about how many Americans are susceptible to COVID-19. Dozens of studies have shown people exposed to other coronaviruses have T-cell reactivity when COVID-19 is introduced. This long-term type of immunity has endured as long as 17 years in people exposed to SARS. It is not certain how long it may last for those exposed to other coronaviruses. This type of immunity is estimated to be present in between 40 and 60% of the population.

The other secret is that people with this reactivity may test positive for the virus. COVID-19 doesn’t bounce off them. Their immune system kills the virus before it can build to a level to become infectious. They will have the same viral debris in their noses that a recovered patient does.

Dr. Scott Atlas explained this to the press after Dr. Redfield incorrectly said 90% of Americans are susceptible to COVID-19 during congressional testimony. Dr. Fauci roundly criticized Dr. Atlas for providing factual information. Because the media is interested in elevating panic porn, they promoted Fauci’s point of view. They then went on a mission to discredit Dr. Atlas.

In fact, any doctor who goes against the preferred narrative is vilified by Fauci. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Simone Gold, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, to name a few. The science on COVID-19 is far from settled. But we are only allowed to hear the opinions of those who agree with or parrot Dr. Fauci. Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN is a good example.

So, I am not inclined to sacrifice anything because this dishonest little man thinks I should. Instead, I will read the available information from all sources and make the best decision for me. I will be eating Thanksgiving dinner with friends and family—with too much food, and very few, if any, masks.

However, because of the Mendacious Midget™ and his half-truths and weasel-words, people across this country are living in unnecessary fear. They will sacrifice whatever this one-man vaccine machine tells them to. And a politicized media is happy to let them.
Post Reply