Covid: Scientists head to Logar Heads over new UK approach | Science

Rival teams of scientists are at loggerheads over how the government should handle the Kovid epidemic, with one suggesting that only the more than-5 and the weak should be protected, while measures have been taken nationwide.

Two open letters issued Monday by the opposition camp have given anti-government advice to the UK government and the chief medical officers (CMOs).

It appeared as Professor Chris Whitty, CMO of England, and Sir Patrick Valence, Chief Scientific Adviser, aired a national TV show to instantly determine the risk of contracting the virus as well as the increase in cases and deaths if public behavior did not change.

Thirty-two scientists have signed a letter warning that the government has taken the wrong path and should reconsider its policy of controlling the virus by targeting it instead.

Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Carl Heneghan from Oxford University, Professor Carl Sikora from Buckingham and Sam Williams, a consultant on economic insights, issued the warning with 26 signatures to the Prime Minister, Chancellor and four UK CMOs.

Support for the CMO and Valence, who appear to have been in favor of greater sanctions, came from a letter signed by the second 22 scientists, led by Trisha Greenhallg of the University of Oxford, and supported by 22 others.

Gupta and colleagues will be seen as rejecting, “they say,” we strongly support your continued efforts to control the virus in the whole population, “they say. Dividing the population and protecting the elderly will not be effective until animal immunity develops. Adds.

The two measures mark a rift within the scientific community over how to deal with the second wave of coronavirus in the UK.

The Gupta-Henhan-Sikora letter warned that the increase in numbers and lockdowns and restrictions imposed across the country and wherever possible could “lead to significant losses across all ages, which probably do no good”.

“The existing policy does not conform to the known risk-profile of Covid-19 and should be reconsidered. A vaccine may be introduced at a time when the volatile purpose now appears to be to suppress the virus. This purpose is increasingly unnecessary,” they added. By

Gupta and colleagues said that we should think outside of the coronavirus to take into account deaths that may occur due to other causes because people are too anxious to go to their doctor or the NHS cannot treat them. And we should think about the economic and social impact of the lockdown. “Interventions for the blanket covid policy are likely to be a big expense, as any adverse effects affect the entire population,” they say.

Asked what would be the acceptable level of Kovid’s death in this situation, Williams said: “It’s not so much how we think.” Inevitable deaths from other causes occurred during the lockdown. “You have to make sure that you are going to save lives if you spend what you take action on,” he said.

They say the focus on case numbers and R numbers (showing the rate of transmission) is incorrect and they consider the results subject to interpretation, not case counts.

Most of the deaths are in the elderly population: 89% are pre-existing with 95% and 95% with pre-existing medical conditions. “The disadvantages that result from uniform policies (which apply to all individuals) outweigh the benefits,” they wrote.

People at risk should be informed so that they can make their own decisions about their safety. “Give people honest and objective information about their risks,” Williams said. Instead, talking about the dangers that were for everyone, made people at lower risk more dangerous than they were.

A second letter from Greenhill and colleagues stated that deaths and serious illnesses had occurred at all ages. They argued that the “long covid” – an extended and physical illness – had affected thousands of people in the UK, most of them young.

They say that in an open society “especially for disadvantaged groups (e.g., those living in compressed housing and multi-generational families)” it is unrealistic for people to exclude vulnerable groups. Many grandparents are sending their children home from school while they are working.

They share the public’s desire to return to “normality,” but in the case of virus control it must be balanced with variable restrictions that respond to changes day-to-day and week-to-week.

Some authors are from a group called the Independent Sage, which established itself out of concern for the transparency of the government’s own scientific advisory committee on epidemics, chaired by Whitty and Valence.

Science itself cannot be final, they admit. “While it is always helpful to have more information and more evidence, we are aware that this complex and fast-moving epidemic could certainly be elusive.

“A study declared as ‘best evidence’ or ‘strong evidence’ by an expert will be considered as limited or defective by another expert. It’s more important than ever to consider multiple perspectives on issues and encourage interdisciplinary debate and peer review, ”they say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *