Jeremy, as a health professional in an earlier life what is your opinion on the UK government's approach and in particular that of herd immunity?
I wouldn't presume to use medical knowledge that is the best part of 30 years out of date, Keith. I see the logic behind the argument, but whether it's a better approach than that adopted by other countries is a far wider question.
What are being reported as the current provisional plans to prohibit large gatherings of people seem to me to be sensible: one must always plan for the worst. The rationale, however, appears not to be that more people become infected in such gatherings, as people who are already infected are unlikely to pass it to those not in their immediate vicinity and those who acquire it at the gathering do not themselves become infectious for some days. Rather, it is aimed at avoiding the stress on public services caused by the need to police such gatherings.
There is no sensible rationale, it seems to me, behind closing schools: the young appear, oddly enough, not to be severely affected by the virus and the need for thousands of parents to absent themselves from work - including work in the NHS, the police and so on - to be with children who are not at school would have potentially catastrophic consequences.
The aim seems to be to flatten the infection curve, not so that fewer people become infected but so that they become infected over a longer period, placing less acute strain on health services. Is that sensible? I've no idea; but it's clear that the question goes beyond simple health and strays into the realm of economics.
FWIW, I have never seen the wearing of masks by the uninfected to be other than fatuous. They aren't designed to protect the wearer, and they don't.
Italians sing from their windows to boost morale
The morale of the singers, perhaps; I've heard it on the radio and it certainly did nothing for mine.
That might be all that it proves beyond any doubt, but a strong scientific consensus does indicate a high probability of it being right. (Arguments based on lack of certainty are usually the domain of those who desire to believe otherwise.)
The argument that “one time about a century ago a big group of scientists were wrong about a radical new idea” is very weak in the realm of evidentiary science as opposed to logical/philosophical/religious certainty.
The existence of a strong consensus would indicate that it's likely to be correct; but I've seen no evidence that such a consensus does in fact exist, and that letter certainly doesn't prove it. I wasn't referring to the Einstein nonsense as evidence that this group was wrong, merely as evidence that numbers don't equal correctness.
Jeremy
