ΠΑΡΑΦΡΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΤΟ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΜΑ! “Κολλήστε όσο το δυνατόν περισσότεροι”

Σκέτη παραφροσύνη !

Η στρατηγικη που προτείνεται είναι….. Η “ΚΟΠΑΔΙΚΗ ΑΝΟΣΙΑ” τουτέστιν…. Να αρπάξουν την κορονοϊό όσο το δυνατόν περισσότεροι…. μετά να γίνουν καλά…. και αυτόματα να αποκτήσουν κοπαδική ανοσία στον ιό!

Μαλώνουν τώρα στο ποιο είναι το επιθυμητό ποσοστό της κοπαδικής μόλυνσης… το 60%, το 70% του συνολικού πληθυσμού….. ή θα ήταν καλύτερα να μολυνθούν περισσότεροι !!!!!!!!

Δεν κάνουμε κανένα Δημοψήφισμα να ρωτήσουμε τα κοπάδια τι προτιμούν !!!

Όλα αυτά αναφέρουν δημοσιεύματα στην Αγγλία.

Διαβάστε το απίστευτο δημοσίευμα από τον πολυδιαφημισμένο Guardian:

Herd immunity: will the UK’s coronavirus strategy work?

Herd immunity is a phrase normally used when large numbers of children have been vaccinated against a disease like measles, reducing the chances that others will get it. As a tactic in fighting a pandemic for which there is no vaccine, it is novel – and some say alarming.

It relies on people getting the disease – in this case Covid-19 – and becoming immune as a result. Generally it is thought that those who recover will be immune, at least for now, so they won’t get it twice.

But allowing the population to build up immunity in this way – rather than through widespread testing, tracking down the contacts of every case and isolating them, as many other countries in Asia and Europe have chosen to do – could increase the risk to the most vulnerable: older people with underlying health problems.

Advertisement

To reach herd immunity, about 60% of the population would need to get ill and become immune, according to Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser. Though it could need as much as 70% or more. Even scientists who understand the strategy are anxious. “I do worry that making plans that assume such a large proportion of the population will become infected (and hopefully recovered and immune) may not be the very best that we can do,” said Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“Another strategy might be to try to contain [it] longer and perhaps long enough for a therapy to emerge that might allow some kind of treatment. This seems to be the strategy of countries such as Singapore. While this containment approach is clearly difficult (and may be impossible for many countries), it does seem a worthy goal; and those countries that can should aim to do.”

The government’s “nudge unit” seems to favour this strategy. Dr David Halpern, a psychologist who heads the Behavioural Insights Team, said on BBC News: “There’s going to be a point, assuming the epidemic flows and grows, as we think it probably will do, where you’ll want to cocoon, you’ll want to protect those at-risk groups so that they basically don’t catch the disease and by the time they come out of their cocooning, herd immunity’s been achieved in the rest of the population.”
Sign up for Lab Notes – the Guardian’s weekly science update

Read more
But Anthony Costello, a paediatrician and former World Health Organization director, said that the UK government was out of kilter with other countries in looking to herd immunity as the answer. It could conflict with WHO policy, he said in a series of Twitter posts, which is to contain the virus by tracking and tracing all cases. He quoted Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO director general, who said: “The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.”

Herd immunity might not even last, Costello said. “Does coronavirus cause strong herd immunity or is it like flu where new strains emerge each year needing repeat vaccines? We have much to learn about Co-V immune responses.” Vaccines, he said, were a much safer way of bringing it about.

Since you’re here…
… we have a small favour to ask. More people, like you, are reading and supporting the Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we made the choice to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as €1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.