New Delhi: Despite some unscientific claims that our politicians have made about tackling novel coronavirus in the past few months, the Indian government has been quick to swing into action. The same, however, cannot be said about the British government.
The deadly disease, termed COVID-19 by the WHO, has claimed over 6,500 lives and infected more than 1.6 lakh people across the globe.
While countries across the world have advised their citizens to live in social distancing — US cancelled all public gatherings, France and Italy went into lockdown and India declared coronavirus a 'notified disaster' — the British government is waiting with folded arms.
They are hoping for 60 per cent of its population to contract the disease and develop immunity against it.
Sounds potentially life-threatening and dangerous, right? It is. However, UK's chief science adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance claimed last Friday that this relaxed approach of the government is actually a way to combat coronavirus in the long run by developing 'herd immunity'.
Defending Prime Minister Boris Johnson's move to not cancel large public gatherings just yet, Vallance told BCC that the important thing that needed to be done was to "build up some kind of herd immunity" so that many people are immune to coronavirus, which will result in reduced transmission.
Where is Boris Johnson leading the herd?
Herd immunity, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is achieved generally through vaccinations. When a large majority of a population is vaccinated against a disease, those who did not get the vaccine, will also automatically gain a certain degree of immunity to that disease because the chances of it spreading to them will reduce drastically.
Even in cases of epidemics, it sometimes happens that over a period of time, if a majority of the population has had the disease and developed immunity against it, then many who had not contracted it, also gain a certain level of immunity, as the chances of it transmitting are diminished.
However, it has to be pointed out, that this kind of herd immunity, where the immunity has been derived from people contracting the disease and developing immunity against it (rather than through vaccination) has historically happened naturally, and as a by-product of an epidemic.
Can it be a government's health emergency plan to deal with a pandemic? Definitely not. There is also no research to back up the fact that once someone has contracted the virus, he/she will develop immunity against it. If they don't, it will not only makes the situation unmanageable but also cause many unprecedented deaths.
With people even getting reinfected, it also does not wean off the severity of the disease in its 'second wave'.
The British government is being highly criticised over its approach to coronavirus. Over 200 scientists, comprising geneticists, biologists, physicists and mathematicians have penned their concerns about the same in an open letter.
The herd immunity concept is not a viable option to deal with COVID-19, they wrote.
But not just Britons, people around the world are criticising this move. With more than 35 deaths and over 1,300 cases detected so far in the country, the fear that enough is not being done by Johnson's administration to tackle the virus is indeed real, but what is more worrisome is where the herd immunity approach will lead the British citizens in future.
Can the British Government willingly jeopardise thousands of lives?
For herd immunity to be achieved, assuming that it can be achieved, at least 60% of the British population will have to contract coronavirus and develop immunity against it.
Chances are that will not happen without thousands of casualties, who will, in all likelihood be the most vulnerable group of elderly people with pre-existing health issues, which makes it not just ethically wrong but also discriminatory.
Does a government have the right to risk the lives of its elderly population, in the hope of an uncertain benefit to achieve herd immunity in future? Also, can a government knowingly put only a section of the population, who are already at high risk, in harm's way? Definitely not.
After UK's 'herd immunity' garnered severe criticism from all corners, on Sunday, Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for Health and Welfare, UK, tried to manage the situation by saying that herd immunity isn't the state policy.
He said, that in weeks to come, senior people — those above the age of 70 — will be asked to isolate themselves. This, however, reflects even more poorly on UK's strategy.
If they are truly not opting for herd immunity than the prudent thing would be to ask everyone to go into social distancing, rather than just one particular group.
And if they are still trying to achieve herd immunity, but at the same time, minimize the number of casualties in trying to do so, it wouldn't work because herd immunity can only be achieved if the disease in question is contracted by the majority of the population, cutting across age groups.
If after months of staying self-quarantined, the elderly population comes out, there will be no guarantee that they will be protected by herd immunity.
The cost of herd immunity
Needless to say, if Britain doesn't change its strategy it will stretch the Nation Health Service (NHS) resources to the extreme. According to a secret Public Health England (PHE) briefing for senior NHS officials accessed by The Guardian, as many as 7.9 million people are likely to be hospitalised, and the coronavirus is going to last till the spring of 2021, which punctures the assumption that with warmer weather the virus would die.
The document suggests that every 4 out of 5 Britons will be affected by COVID-19. Apart from elderly people, also acutely vulnerable will be the 5 million NHS staff and 1.5 million individuals who work in the social healthcare sector.
The UK is not well-equipped to handle so many cases of coronavirus. To begin with, if the virus affects such a vast majority, it will cause a huge strain on testing laboratories. Hospitals would thus not have sufficient resources to cater to all — which means only those in serious condition will be admitted — while the rest will have to self-quarantine themselves and get treatment at home.
The availability of medicines can also be affected.
Brexit in the time of Coronavirus
Amid the rising cases of coronavirus, experts argue that due to Brexit, that is slated to be completed by December 31, the UK will not have rapid access to coronavirus vaccine, and it will be more costly to buy.
The UK will exit the European Medicine Agency (EMA) and will, therefore, have to stand in line with other countries to receive the products developed by EU drug companies to curb coronavirus.
The schedule for the Brexit was already a tight one, but with coronavirus cases hurtling towards the peak in UK, Boris Johnson is facing pressure to extend the deadline to negotiate the trade agreement with the European Union.
Now, with travel bans and no face-to-face meetings possible, an agreement is hard to reach, and ideally, Johnson should ask for an extension so that the UK, as well as other European countries, can focus on tackling the pandemic.
But so far, he has shown no sign of deferring the upcoming deadline and is just trying to adhere to it, for political reasons, which may have disastrous consequences on the UK's economy.
Comments
0 comment