"Italian health minister claims Johnson told his leader UK plan was ‘herd immunity"

Channel 4’s Dispatches spoke to the Italian health minister, Pierpaolo Sileri, who said this is what was said in a conversation between Johnson and Conte on 13 March. Sileri told the programme:

I spoke with Conte to tell President Conte that I’d tested positive [for coronavirus]. And he told me that he’d spoken with Boris Johnson and that they’d also talked about the situation in Italy. I remember he said, ‘He told me that he wants herd immunity’.

I remember that after hanging up, I said to myself that I hope Boris Johnson goes for a lockdown.

Click to expand...

RossyG said:

We should've stuck with that plan.

Click to expand...

vegster said:

Are you are a white male, 25-35, normal BMI, no underlying health issues by any chance ?

Click to expand...

RossyG said:

We should've stuck with that plan.

Click to expand...

Badger Boy said:

No. I was vocal about supporting the herd immunity idea and I was wrong. Lockdown was the right action to take with, in my opinion, the wrong message given to the public. Probably a lack of clear vision and long term exit strategy as well, which fuelled the cynicism. But I feel I was wrong to oppose the lockdown action itself. I feel like mine was an emotional overreaction to the doom and gloom predictions (250k deaths) which was total fantasy. The relentless negativity got my back up but I can see now that lockdown was the right action to take. It wasn't perfectly implemented or enforced by any means and there are many questions about it, but isolation in itself was the right thing to do.

I don't criticise Boris Johnson for initially believing herd immunity was the right thing to do. And I won't criticise him for changing his opinion having listened to the expert opinions, that's what they were there for. Any person can make a mistake but what matters is what you do when you realise you have made one. I believe he's bungled it overall, but I feel it would be hypocritical to criticise his initial belief that herd immunity was the right way to go.

Click to expand...

RossyG said:

We should've stuck with that plan.

Click to expand...

A1X said:

The more important question is whether he really did change his mind or whether her simply went through the motions to avoid people taking matters into their own hands (and to avoid being shown up by the large number of businesses which took action prior to lockdown in sending their employees home, mine included).

Click to expand...

RossyG said:

We should've stuck with that plan.

Click to expand...

RossyG said:

No, I think I’ve made my thoughts on this issue clear over the past few weeks.

This was a virus that targeted specific groups. They should’ve been our focus.

And we still have the collateral damage to come: death’s due to missed treatments, depression, and unemployment.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I suspect you've been so succinct knowing you'll stir up a bit of controversy simply leaving it there.

Leading up to 23 March Britain appeared to be following Sweden's approach of a light touch, no scientific evidence that lock down works, socially distance and do all the things you can, but carry on as best you can.

2 months or so on, UK had a strict lockdown and 602 deaths per 1 million people. Sweden on the other hand has 444 deaths per 1 million people.

Sweden went no lockdown, low tech and seemingly have done better than the UK. South Korea went hi-tech, limited lockdown and only 5 deaths per million. New Zealand of course went severe lockdown and also has 5 deaths per million.

I thought this as a decent article by Simon Jenkins.

Click to expand...

Brighton Lines said:

I still struggle to understand how deaths per million is an index.

The biggest factor involved in the spread of the disease is the number of people who brought it into the country in the first place.

If five people brought it into Sweden and ten into the UK you would expect us to have twice the infection rate as the virus has twice the opportunity to spread.

I keep raising this as the best indicator and have had no argument to oppose it. Yet, I see (unless I'm mistaken) no research in this area.

Put it like this. You have two armies. One twice the size of the other. Both fight another army of indefinite number. Both are armed to same degree and of exactly the same training and capability.

It follows that the largest of the two would inflict the most damage per capita on the other army..

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

It's not that simple, because 1 person who has multiple contacts, visits many places etc. will have a far bigger impact than 10 people who all get through customs and go straight home, work from home and have little contact with anyone. This is where track and trace nailed it in South Korea, no 1 person was able to become a super spreader. If you don't track and trace 1 person can be as devastating as a hundred if their behaviour favours viral spread.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

this isnt news. we know they favoured natural herd immunity approach, then when presented with model they changed policy.

Click to expand...

clapham_gull said:

The fact it was confirmed to the Italian government very much is news.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...