Barrington Agreement Covid

“A similar approach could one day work for COVID-19 – indeed, a co-19 vaccination strategy similar to that of influenza (targeted for the most vulnerable) has already been discussed in the UK: www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interim-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination; But we don`t have a COVID-19 vaccine yet or more general antiviral treatment. Gentlemen, the minister and I are very much in agreement on this point. The scientific understanding of Covid-19 suggests that the virus is not guaranteed by immunity. In fact, cases of second infections are emerging in the world. Does the minister agree that until we have a vaccine, this proposal is dangerous and uncertain and raises the question of who decides who should lock themselves up and for how long? “There is no current evidence of COVID-19 that a passive long-term approach has any benefit. Despite tremendous advances in our understanding of coronavirus and the resulting infection, we do not know that herd immunity is possible. Natural, permanent and disease protection immunity would be necessary and we do not know how effective or sustainable human immunity will be after infection. Just to know if it is possible, it would mean killing many more than thousands of people, and many others would suffer from the effects of the long kovide, which is even less well understood. This article is freely made available in accordance with the terms and conditions of the BMJ website for the duration of the Covid 19 pandemic or to its destination by BMJ. You can use, download and print the article for both legal and non-commercial purposes (including text and data extraction), provided all copyright mentions and trademarks are retained. The authors – Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine and Economics at Stanford, said that because the elderly die 1000 times more Covid-19 than young people, a “historic age” approach could allow resources to be focused on older and at-risk patients, while younger and healthier people can go to school and stay open to business.

Thousands of doctors and public health scientists have signed a declaration advocating an alternative approach to public health in the management of Covid-19. Mr. Baral told the BMJ that three steps should be accompanied by an easing of restrictions: first, the removal of barriers to access to health care; second, paid leave for those affected by Covid-19; and finally, housing allowance for these people in multigenerational households. “On one level, this statement is a statement on a number of scientific truths and, as such, unchallenged. The statement indicates that the elderly and vulnerable are at much higher risk than the majority of the population, which is certain. I do not think anyone is of the opinion that the disruptions in education, social life and the economy have been very difficult to bear and that they particularly penalize young people, who are the least likely to suffer serious negative effects of covid-19. He defended the Swedish approach and said that “schools have never been closed to children aged 1 to 15, with zero Covid-19 deaths . .

. and the United States has now overtaken Sweden in terms of deaths per million inhabitants, although Sweden has an older and riskier population. 5 “The authors failed to point out that our ability to treat covid19 is improving significantly due to scientific and medical breakthroughs, a point that reinforces the arguments in favour of their policy by reducing the number of viruses.

Leave a reply