RE: part 2 An Ill Wind

I think you are being a deal too cynical. If the plan was to kill off =
the "unproductive and expensive" elderly the readily available method =
would be to simply do much less, much later.

SARS and MERS are qualitatively unlike Covid-2019/2019-nCoV - the death =
rate was between 10 and 40 times as high - around 40% CFR for MERS. As =
with Ebola radical action is the only conceivable option.

Influenza is unlike 2019-nCoV in that the death rate is 20 times lower - =
radical action like welding people into their apartments for months on =
end is unthinkable for influenza.

Covid-2019 is in between and governments are attempting to steer an =
in-between course. Whether this is the best course is arguable but it =
seems like a genuine effort to me.

I too have run the numbers and I wish they were doing more, sooner. But =
they have access to information I do not, so even though I think they =
are wrong, I don't have high confidence in my judgement.

Best regards, Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto <ukcrypto-bounces-QGMSyCZBOSwv4zxTlrOuLwNdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> On Behalf Of
> Peter Fairbrother
> Sent: 17 March 2020 11:23
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: part 2 An Ill Wind
>=20
> An Ill Wind
>=20
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D2XRc389TvG8
>=20
> So now we know: the UK government is planning to deliberately infect =
60%
> to 80% of the population, over 40 million UK citizens with COVID-19; =
causing,
> on their own figures, 400,000 deaths. It has already begun.
>=20
> The reason given is to develop "herd immunity"; where practically =
everybody
> has had the virus and is immune, so that there is nobody susceptible =
for
> someone who later contracts it to give it to.
>=20
> But the Chinese didn't do that. They implemented strong containment =
and
> isolation and stopped the virus dead. They didn't "lessen the peak", =
they
> obliterated the peak.
>=20
> Less than one hundredth of 1% of the population caught the disease.
>=20
> There is no reason why we can't do that too.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yet the Government insists on buying herd immunity at the cost of at =
least
> 400,000 (more likely a million [1]) deaths. Why? What good would herd
> immunity, bought at such a terrible cost, do?
>=20
> One reason given is that the Government believes that COVID-19 will =
turn
> into a seasonal disease, and herd immunity might protect us from it's =
return
> next year.
>=20
> There are two big problems with that. First, we don't know whether it =
will
> return at all. SARS didn't, MERS didn't.
>=20
> Second, if it does return next year, it will have mutated - and like =
flu, it is
> reasonably likely that this year's herd immunity, so dearly bought, =
will not be
> effective against next year's version, if it happens.
>=20
> There is also concern about people in China who seem to have gotten =
the
> disease twice. We don't know why that is, whether it is two different =
strains
> [2] of the virus or people getting the same disease twice - however =
either
> would lower the usefulness of any herd immunity.
>=20
> -
>=20
> So, I don't see why the UK Government are deliberately killing 400,000
> people.
>=20
> Apparently it isn't because the UK has a large proportion of older =
people.
> Older people who need extensive healthcare, expensive pensions, who =
tie
> up a lot of wealth and property - of the predicted 400,000
> (million) deaths the vast majority would be of older people.
>=20
> This clearing away of unproductive and expensive (and wealthy) older
> population would more than balance the budget, releasing =C2=A310 =
billion per
> year in state pensions, =C2=A320 billion per year in heathcare costs, =
and so on.
>=20
> It would stop the disease in the UK fairly quickly, and it would be =
the
> cheapest option (ignoring the actuarial but not-real-pounds cost of =
the
> deaths).
>=20
> It would release several hundred thousand badly-needed homes (and =
cause
> a property price crash; the UK needs about 1 million homes, which is =
why UK
> property is so expensive) and would provide a more balanced population
> pyramid.
>=20
> So for the UK as a nation it would not be a bad thing (ignoring the =
deaths),
> and I fear some politicians may think "Hey, it's just the useless =
oldies, who
> cares?".
>=20
> -
>=20
> But no. There is probably another reason why we don't implement strong
> confinement and stop the virus in its tracks, rather than letting it
> have its way. Unfortunately I don't know what that reason is.
>=20
> If it is just a gamble on herd immunity, that is not a gamble anybody
> sane would take now - we do not know enough about the virus to say if =
it
> will work this year, or whether it will be of any use in future years.
>=20
> If it turns out to be a step worth taking - but we do not have to take
> that step now. We can wait a year or two to find out more about the
> virus, develop a vaccine or a cure, prepare - while putting up with a
> trickle of infections, and a total death count in the hundreds or
> perhaps low thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Peter Fairbrother
>=20
>=20
> [1] I calculate around a million deaths, but that is a back-of-the
> envelope calculation based on known death rates elsewhere and
> comparative population age spreads. Exact figures are not available as
> they would depend on things we do not know about the disease. I have
> made what I think are reasonable assumptions. I don't know how
> reasonable the Goverment's assumptions are, or how they came up with =
the
> 400,000 figure.
>=20
> [2] there are now several hundred known varieties of the COVID-19 =
virus,
> it mutates fairly rapidly