Jersey’s High Risk Exit Approach
Guernsey has adopted a New Zealand-style model of aiming
to eradicate it entirely. Jersey has gone in a different direction, which is
also followed by the UK, in accepting it will continue to spread and that the
majority of people will “need” to get it to build herd immunity with a vaccine
likely a year or so away. (Gary Burgess, ITV News)
"To date, there is a view that the virus will have
to go through the island in some shape or form, at some point", John Le Fondre
“The aim has been
to allow the virus to move through the island at a slow safe rate, without
putting pressure on the health services.” (Jersey Medical Director, Patrick
Armstrong)
Deputy Richard Renouf, the Minister for Health and Social
Services, has said Jersey's new plan will ‘mean more people in hospital’ and
‘an increase in the number of deaths’.
And they call that a “Safe Exit Framework”!!!
What did Sir Humphrey say in “Yes Minister” to Bernard about Ministerial documents? “Always
dispose of the difficult bits in the title. Does more harm than in the text.”
An Assistant Minister tells me (unofficially but in an open forum on Facebook):
“I thought the logic was obvious from the start, but this
might benefit from being repeated. Two choices: 1) eradicate and isolate or 2)
let the virus run through the population in a controlled way. The problem with
1) is that you need to keep your borders closed for a minimum of 18 months in
the hope that there will be a vaccine, that by the time there is a vaccine the
virus hasn't mutated and that you are ready to wait until the rest of the world
has been vaccinated and/or proven immune before you open up (which won't
happen)."
"When I say closed, I mean closed to people -and- goods as the virus survives on surfaces for days. We might be able to get some survival rations by disinfecting them, but that's it, forget about your Amazon parcel. Jersey would look like the Chausey islands by the end of that. A completely autonomous country like North Korea might be able to pull it off but not without starving 10% of their population to death, again. And Guernsey is going for option 2), of course, they're not idiots.”
"When I say closed, I mean closed to people -and- goods as the virus survives on surfaces for days. We might be able to get some survival rations by disinfecting them, but that's it, forget about your Amazon parcel. Jersey would look like the Chausey islands by the end of that. A completely autonomous country like North Korea might be able to pull it off but not without starving 10% of their population to death, again. And Guernsey is going for option 2), of course, they're not idiots.”
Of course Guernsey is not going for option 2, for as reported
accurately by Gary Burgess, and explained by Dr Nicola Brink and also by Gavin
St Piere – interviewed on The World at One. They are going for elimination, with a 14 day quarantine zone for anyone coming into Guernsey, but
with the relative small risk of coronavirus with freight movements, which can
be tracked and tested and contained with the new 3 hour testing facility and
excellent contact tracing..
And the Assistant Minister goes on:
“Less lockdown means more cases. We didn't have many
cases to start with and we were too efficient in suppressing the spread, but
the risk was very high as the vulnerable population was then completely
exposed. Now that we can keep the most vulnerable protected, we need to open up
and get more cases.”
“We've reduced numbers too much but that is better than
erring on the other side. Now we need 6,000 young and fit people to catch the
virus every month.”
I said: So why don't we just get 6,000 young and fit
volunteers every month and inject them with the virus!! That in essence is what
is being said.
I’m not naming the Assistant Minister, but it is clear
that he is only making explicit the official view, which to my mind, is
tantamount to criminal negligence by the Government.
At least he is honest in open in making it clear that
this strategy will lead to more deaths – just as Richard Renouf said - Jersey's new plan will ‘mean more people in hospital’ and ‘an increase in the number of deaths’. And consider this: Guernsey's strategy is aimed to keep less people in hospital and reduce the number of deaths.
Richard Renouf clearly intends to unlock enough to get enough cases to use the new Nightingale hospital, as he says "more people in hospital".
Of course, Guernsey's strategy is determined by Dr Nicola Brink, a first class virologist with 54 published peer reviewed studies on virology and 3,267 citations of those. No wonder it's a good one!
What is also very worrying and again show that Jersey does not do their homework, is that the breakdown cases in the UK show deaths in the 18-44 age group is 4.5% of the total. So for 6,000 to catch the virus in Jersey, as the Assistant Minister suggests, would potentially result in 27 deaths. Also there is a good risk of damage to the lungs and other organs, even when people survive.
Richard Renouf clearly intends to unlock enough to get enough cases to use the new Nightingale hospital, as he says "more people in hospital".
Of course, Guernsey's strategy is determined by Dr Nicola Brink, a first class virologist with 54 published peer reviewed studies on virology and 3,267 citations of those. No wonder it's a good one!
What is also very worrying and again show that Jersey does not do their homework, is that the breakdown cases in the UK show deaths in the 18-44 age group is 4.5% of the total. So for 6,000 to catch the virus in Jersey, as the Assistant Minister suggests, would potentially result in 27 deaths. Also there is a good risk of damage to the lungs and other organs, even when people survive.
Why the States adopted this controlled herd immunity strategy
in preference to Guernsey is laid out above, but I am at lost as to how they
think it will be better.
Gavin St Pier, Chief Minister of Guernsey, said that: “Our
first priority is absolutely protecting the health and lives of Islanders.”
The Jersey view that the virus will have to go through
the island, as noted by Health Minister Richard Renouf, will result in an
increase in the number of deaths. It is the deliberate surrender of islanders
lives and health driven by a misguided ideology of a flattened herd immunity. For some islanders, this misjudgement will prove fatal.
Guernsey has just called its strategy “Exit from Lockdown”. Jersey has adopted the pretentious title, “Safe Exit Framework”, but as can be seen, it is anything but safe. It will endanger lives and the health of people living here. Despite the bland assurances, this strategy will let people die or be scarred for life, which – as we can see from Guernsey’s approach – could have been preventable.
For as well as deaths, healthy people have ended up with scarring on lungs, kidney damage and other serious conditions as they catch it as well. The statistics on that are solid. Just read the medical journals.
Jersey's Lack of a Quantifiable Strategy
Guernsey has just called its strategy “Exit from Lockdown”. Jersey has adopted the pretentious title, “Safe Exit Framework”, but as can be seen, it is anything but safe. It will endanger lives and the health of people living here. Despite the bland assurances, this strategy will let people die or be scarred for life, which – as we can see from Guernsey’s approach – could have been preventable.
For as well as deaths, healthy people have ended up with scarring on lungs, kidney damage and other serious conditions as they catch it as well. The statistics on that are solid. Just read the medical journals.
Jersey's Lack of a Quantifiable Strategy
Guernsey goes all the way to phase 6 in their exit
strategy, with quantifiable details on what would move to the next phase, or
again what would move back a step (which they hope to avoid). That's the scientific approach. Jersey’s "framework" is a vague document, lacking any firm quantification, and very much changing on
whim, and as we have seen recently, capable of confused messages about what it
actually says.
The only criteria given is this: “Chief Minister John Le
Fondre said the timings of each new level would depend on ‘how quickly and how
far’ the virus spread as relaxed restrictions exposed more people to infection.”
It is vague, lacking any concrete quantification, just as most of the messages coming from the Government are.
And allowing a deadly virus to spread through society to create a level of immunity implicitly means accepting people will die.
When you see the announcement, "sadly another person has died", ask yourself how real that "sadly" is when steps could have been taken to eliminate that risk.
Elimination Versus Suppression
As Professor Michael Baker of New Zealand noted in a recent article in "The Lancet", a suppression strategy like this is "pretty grim"
“The two biggest benefits of pursuing an elimination strategy is that you have few cases and few deaths and you can get business back up and running. The alternative was that we are stuck with the virus and stuck between mitigation and suppression. Suppression is pretty grim.”
"We don't want the public to feel like they are being lied to. Elimination to everyone means that it is gone. But in epidemiological terms, it means bringing cases down to zero or near zero in a geographical location. We will still see cases…but only cases in people who have arrived from overseas.”
Travellers from abroad will be quarantined as part of efforts to prevent transmission in New Zealand.
It is worth noting than an elimination strategy is not the same as an eradication strategy, which is not possible at the moment until a vaccine becomes available.
Germany is now set to reimpose some lockdown measures, after seeing a spike in new coronavirus cases. They are stuck between mitigation and suppression.
And allowing a deadly virus to spread through society to create a level of immunity implicitly means accepting people will die.
When you see the announcement, "sadly another person has died", ask yourself how real that "sadly" is when steps could have been taken to eliminate that risk.
Elimination Versus Suppression
As Professor Michael Baker of New Zealand noted in a recent article in "The Lancet", a suppression strategy like this is "pretty grim"
“The two biggest benefits of pursuing an elimination strategy is that you have few cases and few deaths and you can get business back up and running. The alternative was that we are stuck with the virus and stuck between mitigation and suppression. Suppression is pretty grim.”
"We don't want the public to feel like they are being lied to. Elimination to everyone means that it is gone. But in epidemiological terms, it means bringing cases down to zero or near zero in a geographical location. We will still see cases…but only cases in people who have arrived from overseas.”
Travellers from abroad will be quarantined as part of efforts to prevent transmission in New Zealand.
It is worth noting than an elimination strategy is not the same as an eradication strategy, which is not possible at the moment until a vaccine becomes available.
Germany is now set to reimpose some lockdown measures, after seeing a spike in new coronavirus cases. They are stuck between mitigation and suppression.
Whatever else the “Safe Exit Framework” is, and however much it is dressed up in flummery, it is not “absolutely protecting the health and lives of Islanders” as a first priority.
It is not really much of a framework, and it isn’t safe, although it will lead to some people sadly exiting before their time. It is morally irresponsible to pursue this when there is a better alternative.
A "Safe Sadly Exit Framework" would be a better description.
For further reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/lockdowns-cant-end-until-covid-19-vaccine-found-study-says
https://theconversation.com/we-may-well-be-able-to-eliminate-coronavirus-but-well-probably-never-eradicate-it-heres-the-difference-137991
https://theconversation.com/why-a-trans-tasman-travel-bubble-makes-a-lot-of-sense-for-australia-and-new-zealand-137878
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment