Astonishing defence of Johnson’s wrong herd immunity strategy and attack on First Minister

Iain Macwhirter, for reasons not apparent to me, has launched into this difficult topic with a stupid headline. No one is suggesting that the Johnson regime is actively trying to kill old people but many are saying that his preferred ‘herd immunity’ strategy will have that very effect of culling the old, the ill and the poor.

His piece is all about supposed political manoeuvering by the First Minister to attempt to stay onside. Does anyone actually believe that she does not really care and is just another self-centred cynical, callous, political creature indistinguishable from Johnson?

Astonishingly, he portrays her reacting to events as they unfold at speed, to cancel events and to conserve police and ambulance resources for worse to come, as letting the wisdom of crowds take over. Does anyone else read that his way?

Later he defends the Prime Minister’s insensitive language of ‘taking it on the chin’ and it’s underlying ideology as ‘trying to explain disease modelling to a lay audience.’ Does anyone believe that? Wasn’t he really trying to prepare us to be ready for multiple deaths and to excuse himself from any responsibility for trying to reduce them? Surely Macwhirter agrees that language matters?

To somehow justify himself and his argument, Macwhirter quotes unattributed sources ‘screaming’ things like:

‘How can you sit there and let people die!’

Who actually said that? One social media warrior?

Macwhirter explains herd immunity but only, contrary I’m sure to his own editorial guidelines, from the point of view of the UK Government’s chosen expert:

‘Herd immunity is the doctrine that the epidemic is allowed to spread through the community so that the population acquires antibodies. Eventually, enough people develop immunity through exposure that the disease cannot spread – much as children do when they are exposed to diseases in school. However, this well-respected epidemiological approach implies that some people just might die in the short term in order to save a lot more people dying down the road. It means allowing the virus to run through the community, rather than locking down and minimising the immediate risk of infection.’

This ‘well-respected’ epidemiological approach implies that ‘some people just might die in the short term.’

What a sentence. The World Health Organisation has unambiguously condemned the UK strategy. Macwhirter is biased, inaccurate and apparently uncaring.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/14/world-health-organisation-questions-uk-coronavirus-approach-12397312/

22 thoughts on “Astonishing defence of Johnson’s wrong herd immunity strategy and attack on First Minister”

  2. Its my opinion that Macwhirter went to the “dark side”, with the election of Johnson. Why, I have no idea other than pressure on his carreer.
    Its a great shame to see a once respected journalist, struggle to be in the same space as a populist nut job.
    The UK is now the only country with this policy. We don’t have critical care beds, medical staff etc to suffer the kind of mass infection Johnsons “herd immunity” policy will bring.
    There is no wide spread acceptance of this policy among experts, and wheeling out the long retired Pennington by the Sunday Herald, just makes this capitulation to “finger crossing” and scientific mumbo-jumbo so much worse.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  3. I have just finished reading the Sunday Herald and McWhirter’s article was staggeringly stupid, ill-informed and partisan in Bojo’s favour. In particular the sentence you have highlighted above about the epidemiologist and herd immunity leapt out at me. Herd immunity as it is understood and used by reputable scientists, rather than eugenics practising politicians and there fellow travellers, is the protection afforded to a population by vaccinating the majority – 95% – of the population against the disease and thus protecting them from getting the disease. I repeat, it is protecting the vast majority of the population via a vaccination programme so that they do NOT GET THE DISEASE.

    What is being proposed is that the vast majority of the population get the diseas. That is not herd immunity that is politically induced natural selection survival of the fittest.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  4. Make no mistake this is no longer about protecting the general public this is now about political damage limitation. After a decade of underfunding the Tories know their policies will be brutally exposed by the virus outbreak and their inadequate response to it and are concerned that what the SNP do in isolation in Scotland will increase the political fall out.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Indeed. Two forms of ‘limitation’ are going on: (i) ‘damage limitation’ aimed at protecting the present Westminster government and the track record of the Tory Party in government; and (ii) a more subtle (but not always so) ‘damage limitation’ on behalf of the ‘better together’ case in Scotland. With the latter, the aim in the media is to diminish or ignore any credit the Scottish Government might be due for its competence and/or to charge the Scottish Government/SNP with politicising the public health emergency when its competence becomes too evident.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. Cases in Japan and China have shown that people can get re-infected. Which rather knocks the ‘herd immunity’ strategy on the head. More worryingly the Japanese seem to fear that in their case the virus went dormant, like the herpes virus, only to flare up again periodically. Lets hope the Japanese worries are unfounded but if they are not, or re-infection is common, then the UK govt strategy is completely ineffectual and very dangerous.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. Jeanne Freeman on Sunday Politics Scotland:-

    She insisted that the “herd immunity” strategy was not one the Scottish government was following.

    She said: “What we are doing is following the scientific advice. Many of the measures are due for decision making imminently in the coming days.

    “Herd immunity is not what we are trying to do. We don’t know enough about the virus.

    “The policy is to protect the most vulnerable in the community and as far as possible ensure they get the virus, they do not become sick and as far as possible they do not die.”

    CLEARLY THERE IS A BIG “IF” MISSING FROM THE LAST SENTENCE!

    They had yet another Professor on after that, who sounded very impressive, and was scathing about the whole UK approach. I like (some) Professors, but they are not always correct. I wonder what the bookies are saying?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I recognise and have come to terms with my unlikeability.. We’re doing balancing of their one-sided stuff with our one-sided stuff.
        I like Professor Sridhar…… in an uncreepy purely aesthetic way. Don’t tell that woman who works for Nicola or my wife or my daughter or………….

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. The South Korean Foreign Minister on Marr, a lot older, was also aesthetically pleasing and came across as clever, sensible and on top of it. Can you imagine Pritti Patel being even 0.1% as good?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. I thought all of what she said was good.

      I thought Brewer was boorish – he did not address her by her title apart from in the introduction. At one point he addressed her by her second name only

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. I tried to reason with Macwhirter yesterday and all I got was abuse, until I was supported by a virologist. Today that virologist was supported by WHO and 220 scientists who wrote to Boris Johnson about his policy. That policy has changed and the phrase ‘herd immunity’ is being distanced from the Tory party. Keep up the good work!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I think Ian Bell kept him ‘honest’ because Mr Bell set such a high standatd. After Mr Bell died IMc writing started to change. Almost imperceptible at first then around the time – March 2017 – Ms Sturgeon said there would be a second Indyref the change in his columns was only too apparent. In the last few months it has become truly awful. Did he not get a promotion recently within the Herald? Clearly towing the party line in gratitude. Sad.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  12. Bit of a snake in the grass , is IMac, slithering this way and the other but his apparent endorsement of “herd immunity” in the absence of a vaccine must be a slither too far .

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.