mill, logical sense, does the current strategy of trying to slow down the spread of the pandemic, necessarily mean fewer lives lost overall? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by david livermore, professor in medical microbiology at the university of east anglia, and professor it's good to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure. delighted to be here. now you are a signatory of the great barrington declaration and petition that has already amassed over 650000 signatures worldwide, and which calls for a last wholesale and more targeted approach to dealing with this indictment. so i assume you are clearly and happy with the current response, at least in the united kingdom. would you go as far as saying that the current strategy does more harm than good? yes,, i would look at sending people cost. we have the u.k.,

chancellor of the exchequer today saying that we will have an 11 percent reduction in gross national product close to mystic project. the biggest recession of 300 years that destroys the tax space. it destroys the amount of money that can be spent on future health care. people are dying, it's holme because the flight to go to hospitals. mental health services are stretched. the london ambulance face say they have a 68 percent increase in turnouts to suicides. i could go on, but huge damage is done by the policies that have been followed. and i think this is a very important point that the correct collateral damage, as you call it, is not only huge. at this point, we haven't even been able to ask to made a long term consequences to healthy economy. you know, education, home, hard children and sad. but there is one i think, you know,

small improvement is that a like last spring, when governments around the world were essentially copy coping each other's approach with very little regard for local specifics. i do think that we see a bit more differentiation now out, at least among national policies, but at the general logically, the response is still based on, on the traumas to slow it, to having to slow down. depend on it. do you think that premise in and of itself is the correct one? it's reasonable to try to slow down the pound demick. it's how much damage you want, except in the post says, in the set ups. in the cone of thought, i was switzerland, for example, how to close down. they try to keep things as open as possible and that in switzerland, the virus cases have peaked and now turning downwards. you're seeing the natural

fluctuations of all when 2 spirits revivalists. and it's a big question, how much of all these quite draconian polis is the debate instituted, doing to change its fluctuations? oh, we're just accruing cost for very little gain against a natural fluctuation. and let's be clear, nobody has made that calculus publicly yet. we are in most of the countries we are sort of forced to accept the wisdom of our authorities with very, very little discussion about the cost of saving lives and you know, whole, what are their lives may be lost. in the meantime, now you've been arguing for a more targeted approach or what you call focus protection. but my question to you is how focussed out protection could be because at this point, we know pretty well for us are at the highest and at the low reasons, off of it,

i can complications. but there's a huge area in between, you know, mania was fall in that gray zone of moderate risk people who will not die from disease, but who may still require a lot of medical assistance. what do you think should be done about those people? i think people have to make a personal assessment issues say, stay off the high risk people, all the elderly. so focused protection should be very much does that towards helping them and then showing they don't get cold feet, particularly the very elderly in homes because that's where the really substantial death of a slice. but yes, of course, the people who for personal reasons will personal health issues well sign. those groups and support should be provided. and they would put the support in through

china choose. i would put it through local authorities. i would put it through personal physicians. and i do not believe that the state should be the monopoly supplier. i would get the people child with the local councils. it's all the people who know the local tell the truth, the ground, the people to provide it. but essentially you see that there is a difference between for tat, protecting the most vulnerable, and i think that goes without saying you're not advocating for essentially abandoning them. but there is another issue of you know, of the bottlenecks within the medical systems. we all know that in most countries the most pressing issue is not just the number of bags and mailable number of physicians available. and this is a very finite and easily and saw stumble resource. and your puns would tell you that sure. the current strategy is blunt, it's extremely expensive, it's harmful when it comes to the collateral damage,

but ultimately it does what it's supposed to do, and that is sort of slowing down to tide of new hospitalizations of more direct risk. call that 900 patients who again, are not in direct the risk of dying, but require a lot of medical assistance. they cannot be treated at home. many of them have to be taken to hospitals as have tried to say, try to prevent as many infections as possible in those high. but they skip patients. the hospitals in the u.k. overloaded about 10 to 13 percent of hospital beds occupied by cold feet. patients over wall admissions from cold feet are not dramatically above those that you normally get for that at this time of year, from respect to treat infections. so my view would be that we've imposed these restrictions too. and again,

the collateral damage that results is massive. certainly, i'm not all queuing for do nothing, and that's a bit, but my few ways very much that we have panicked too soon, and others lead to more damage hauled back to what happened in the spring sweeten. famously did not lock down. surely that trajectory of hospitalized patients and deaths was very little different to what happened in the u.k. with the lights locked down well in france and spain with a much stricter lockdown. so if i understand you correctly, it all shouldn't depend on days, circumstances on the ground, and always in each country or any age. graphically kaleta, the situation is different. for example, in russia, i'm hearing from doctors that unlike during the 1st wave of the diamond crown, most of the people hospitalized for the elderly. now they're overwhelmed with

middle aged males who seem to be for some reason more susceptible to these virus than let's say females. and in some regions, a fresh add the hospitals are working at that, and i think it's you 95 percent capacity. so what is constant that situation? is there any other way apart from streaked, clumsy, low downs to slow the spread and you have to learn what you could do to reach capacity. and you can often in particular, increase intensive care capacity within hospitals. so long as you get the judge decide if you need doctors for that. i mean exactly why be quick man. do you have the funding for that? but you cannot train and nurse or doctor in a matter of 23 weeks. sure. are there some professionals who are being retrained, but it's a bit again, as i said, it's a very finite resource because these people to get exhausted,

they get burned out so you can know them indefinitely. rely on them. surely, although i cannot speak for the situation in defeat, the should hospitals, i don't know. all i can say is soon as you can see, which i am familiar with, we have not reached dr. overload point. yet the nor the we've been close to it now. but the general advice across the world is that now, did you control the pandemic? one has to keep interpersonal interactions to an minimum. and this is something that i would like to take an issue with because we already know that the spread of this pandemic is not linear. i for one neighbors with the couple at an elderly couple. and in that case, the husband died from the comment, but his wife, who cared for him in his last days, didn't even get the virus. and there are many examples like this. when you know people seemingly in the same conditions of the same age group of the same house

status stepped in differently. don't you think that perhaps we are focusing too much on how this wire is supposedly being passed rather than how it's being received in the body? who gets it into their systems and who doesn't? i would agree with you, certainly in susceptibility to the 5 s. and you just get a great take sample. it might be human genetics that underlies, that's all that is good as he doesn't say that if you've had infection with kogo of 5 years says and this full of 5 or 6, which have secure late stage for many, many years. if you've had an infection with one of those, it make if you some across immunity to sauce cold too. and so you're less vulnerable to getting it as full disk situations. i think all

full about 15 to 30 percent of households. it's a case tend to get infected. a lot of the transmission has been hospitals, health care settings, which i hold to control simply by virtue of the people whom they hug. hospitality in the u.k. has been missing for close down vests to all hotels was and yes, she accounted for only about 3 to 4 percent of total transmission. so try to be pretty blunt tools have been used. now there's a lot of talk right now about testing and tracing when it comes to coronavirus, but i dared to suggest that, you know, we may also benefit from some sort of biological risk profiles. because at this point of time in sort of assumed you and me have the same, not

a chance of dying from calling 1000 or acquiring not 1000 complications. but don't you think that we also perhaps need to give people a bit more at well, clearly understandable template for how they can make those calculation calculations about their personal risks. because simply being in one age group or another. dad, i don't think that down said h. is the biggest single determinant of risk. i don't think there's much doubt about that. but sex is certainly a factor. obesity is a fact whether for example, you're a diabetic cardiovascular condition. so, numbers a fact khomeini supply a professor livermore, we have to take a short break for the time being, but we'll be back in just a few moments. stay tuned.

join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics or business. i'm show business. i'll see you then is you'll be via reflection of reality in a world transformed what will make you feel safer. tyson, nation for community. are you going the right way? or are you being led?

by what is true? what is right? in the world corrupted, you need to descend to join us in the death or a make of the shallowness. welcome back to worlds apart as we have dr. david leader, more professor in medical microbiology at the university of east anglia, and professor before the break, we were talking about the need for differentiated protection. and i would like to take an issue with the past if nature off of this protection, because there is an assumption the in many societies that the most vulnerable house

to be protected by governments which there are. but i think one is being lost in this whole conversation is what people can do individually, improved our own defenses. things like cutting down on shergar which interferes with your cellular metabolism and immune function. exposure to the sun lied, exercise, sleep, hygiene, etc. why do you think there is so much focus on the collective to oxen and so little focus on the individual way of strengthening your immune defenses. thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. what the great barrington declaration says, and certainly what i very strongly posted belief is that people who are they school should be given the opportunity of being creased protection, that they should, everything should be made as easy as possible for them if they wish to accept that

help but ultimately people in defeat, she will see with agency free will and we live, i sincerely hope in a free society. it should be up to them to take additional personal risks if they wish to do so. i asked for additional information. yes. please put out as much as possible about keeping in good health. that includes talking with people e kluges make keeping contact with your friends. it includes sunlight, putting kluge, taking for it to mean as well. certainly, i'm taking fitz to mean to press at perhaps it may not include being in a confined space for weeks and months on and on. and because my limited knowledge of biology tells me that while it may postpone your encounter with call it, it would also put you at a disadvantage when bad encounter actually happens. it's certainly being

isolated, it's not good for your mental health, not good for your general physiological status and may make us when you get infected. there's also that issue of cross immunity with both the cone of viruses. if you're not saying countering them, it's plausible, it's proven, but it's plausible. you may be more full to soft cold feet too. should you encounter thoughts in the future? so i certainly do not think lockdowns a good for people's health and very bad for people's mental health. is it appropriate to compare it's you essentially taking a shark alone on both personal and public health, you know, trying to minimize the harm today trying to get a bite of a at while minimizing the costs and expenses tomorrow. i think that's a very, very fact and it was never posed at the old w.h.o.,

plan. i looked only yesterday at the w. h. shows respect the tree influenza pandemics plan for 2019. that was not a single mention of lockdowns. this has been done to try to minimize deaths in the shuttle, but the amount of lung damage that is being piled up is stuck. and i think it's sort of being redefined in terms of what we're trying to do. i mean, initially we were told that the whole purpose of the lowdown is just to slow down the mix so that we can provide help. but now it's being proposed as essentially a strategy, not an effort to tie the wand and stop the bloodletting, but rather to an effort to treat the whole thing. and it's a totally, i know you would, i would identify 3 phases in this. the 1st phase was just to flatten the unsold hospitals for well supported doctors, a short term measure. it was just not all necessary and essentially on the

arguments that you yourself put forward a few moments ago about shortage of doctors and facilities. then through the summer, when the case dumbass went down, probably just because this is a seasonal vine leaves us, then they got the notion that this could be suppressed completely through truck and trace. well, now we've got this further suppression, which is, well, can we keep going until a vaccine can be fun, play by suit across populations and fingers crossed it? well, speaking of queens, all the hopes and now pay and on that scenes as something that can hopefully a release us from this state of emergency and uncertainty. i wonder though, if feds didn't see the allure of a panacea realistically, how a fact of could have died and i'm to virally, facts,

and be especially in older populations. well, the data that we get killed vaccine, so fallen for both and if declared into the results well more positive than i'd expected that the ficus see all over the pin, the 90 percent foot at least 3 of them and possibly the full 5. if you look at a subset, it's really pretty good. now that some short term protection we don't know with will persist, we're not sure how well it will last in the long term. and we're not certain of the risk of the fibrous mutating as it did in the danish mink a few weeks ago. but these are all really fairly positive seeds. and if we can get the bulk of the population, the cat as the doctors, the nurses and so on, vaccinated that it can just diminish the grey scale for the most vulnerable, but it's a foot away to besting. but to subdue sting,

destitute on fox seeds, what would be the best case scenario? i mean, how rarely, in fact, you know how to you, you minimise health care or there is an odd added risk groups. every single european for the start of the flu season is that, is that right? i don't think we know as yet. on the one hand we have the example of the saw as outbreak in east asia in 2003. and people have gone back and look at patients who have saas, 17 years ago, when they found, they still got to t. cells against saws, which suggests that they still got some immunity. they from the other hand, you look at natural infection by those full old coca-cola, 5 assists the partners, you get a coma virus, your immunity goes up and then it drained away over a year or 2. and you might get a 2nd time with the same goal of 5 s.

. so as yet we do not know how well, how long the protection against saws cold feet to is good to last. eat the food, not truly infection all through immunized, as should the good news would be that even if it follows those full old cold fibrosis. the top news usually that 2nd attacks, a mild festa talked because that is something you can now let me also ask a couple of questions about the so-called collateral damage it. tell me is that saving lives is an absolute priority for governments. and i think it's obvious that they didn't stop for a 2nd of actually trying to define who and what it means. it's only now that the, c.e.o. all those accumulating consequences that we can start to be talking about big i think, the ecology of saving lives. and my question to you is,

what do you think should be the guiding principles as we think about how to structure the response to this pandemic or to any other that may come our way? i think we have to do much more about balancing the short and the long. as you say, the effort has been what you call saving lives. i would say preventing short deaths because very many of those deaths, 50 percent in the u.k., have been in cat hold. its now when you go into a cat home in the u.k., your life expectancy the afraid is 27 months. and if you look at the median, 50 percent of the people going into a cat hole will be dead within 16 months. so a lot of effort has been protecting those folks who suddenly the end of their lives . and i'm sorry, it's hard to say these days, but all it does,

you and me to ultimately old the dogs, the death. as you go out into the community, people fighting to go to hospitals. developing countesses hot hot to touch in the community not sought help when they should have done this. death's scott said he and into the future in i feel a very large numbers who have the collateral damage. the h.e. say, business school, and university of milan today. how to study out which suggested and i was out for mathematics, but i think it's illustrates. if in the united states $169000000000.00 spent, they believed to save about $29000.00 lives. that's $6000000.00 per life. now that's way way of what he's normally spent saying it comes to treatment in a quality of life assessment. so this,

this all has to be right. i agree with the you i think mayor was failing to recognize that regardless of the advances in medical science, neither our governments nor our doctors can defeat nature and death. all will have to die at certain point and we all have will have to accept that. but let me be the devil's advocate for a for a while and use you actually received and microbiology to perhaps help us guide the affix here. isn't it also natural down to when you are presented with a new pandemic with a new path agenda? isn't it a sad, essentially, natural when the government had to prioritize people with that specific condition of our others? i think we will both think green that this is exactly what our governments did. they not just save lives, but they saved lives of trying to save lives of corona,

patients at the expense of some other people's lives. and that bill has to be accepted if you want to happen, which are a conversation. but is that it? isn't that inevitable? or are there ways of avoiding that and if you try think that was perhaps in an effort to pull in the spring when sauce cofee to 1st stroke on the was talk that it might help a case fatality rates up at about 2 or 3 percent. so i've know to touch the to victual response in the spring to an old 5 start was not the ball, but by the sun. we had a much clearer understanding of this fibrous, of whom killed and wool, the case fatality of 818. he's a gun to about a quarter percent, and he's very much concentrated in particular populations. and he's not holds to find examples of countries which have followed polish, says,

which are already questionable. take, take india for example, which had a look down at the stone of saul's cold feet of cold feet. they shut down a lot of businesses in the big cities. people were pushed out of the cities when migrating to close the country back to the whole towns top spreading the fibrous india later. how to peek over the wall. so fall 140000 deaths. compare that with kilo says full 100000 deaths, which kilo says a 5th of the childes been in india ont patients with kilo cease that disrupted by the covert lockdown, which will show that time to research students in the tuberculosis and make it harder to counter productive in a developing country with

a younger population which didn't have a vast misc fog coping. well, as it all indicates, the road to hell is often bade by the intentions and including good intentions of the politicians. have to leave it there. but thank you very much for being with us and sharing your thoughts, my absolute pleasure and joy. and thank you for watching home to syria again next week, when all the parts are all financial

survival guide? stacey, i'll fill out, let's say i'm not sure i get any earthly use of the flight. thank you for

destroying. 6 that's right, slavery was a controversial bill that may restrict the public media from filming police officers with militias. but this has been israeli, and american flags in condemnation of the killing of iran's leading nuclear scientist. mr. brown was quick to blame on this old president elect joe biden packs his cabinet with cold, spanking concern about washington's intentions of.