Omah, I don't think for one moment that anyone is advocating ignoring sensible precautions such as face masks and distancing

Is herd immunity really a panacea whose time has come? Can it lift the curse of Covid from the world? Many UK scientists counsel caution.

As they point out, only 8% or so of the British population has been infected with the Covid-19 virus. “To get to herd immunity we would need that to reach around 70%,” said Sir Robert Lechler, president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. “Not only are we a huge way off this but we now know that immunity to Covid-19 decreases over time, and that people can be re-infected with the virus.”

For this reason, scientists argue that it is very unlikely that herd immunity could be sustained without a vaccine or regular reinfection. More to the point, if attempts were made to achieve herd immunity by lifting lockdown restrictions, there would be a vast increase in excess deaths, mainly among the old and the vulnerable. NHS services would be overwhelmed while high numbers of “long Covid” cases would have long-term consequences even for those who suffer only mild initial symptoms.

Thing is Omah .... you tell me then how you think it should be handled?

I'm afraid it is you that is blinkered.

Clearly you believe everyone should stay at home until Covid has gone.

Clearly, I don't .....

Ah progress. So you do have an opinion on what direction the government should take then?

* This is like pulling teeth *

So what you're saying is .... you're tenaciously hoping for the best outcome , whilst I'm observing the governments flim flam and realistically preparing for the worst.

Now now cheeky .... I guess you'll just have to place your faith in the government then.
You did say experts didn't you? But not , specifically, experts at what.

The phrase, herd immunity, seems to have first appeared in the work of American livestock veterinarians concerned about “contagious abortion”—epidemics of spontaneous miscarriage—in cattle and sheep. By the 1910s, it had become the leading contagious threat to cattle in the USA. Farmers destroyed or sold affected cows. Kansas veterinarian George Potter realised that this was the wrong approach. Writing with Adolph Eichhorn in 1916 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, he envisioned “herd immunity”. As he wrote in 1918, “Abortion disease may be likened to a fire, which, if new fuel is not constantly added, soon dies down. Herd immunity is developed, therefore, by retaining the immune cows, raising the calves, and avoiding the introduction of foreign cattle.”

The appeal of herd immunity is easy to understand: if it is reached, an epidemic ends. But the illness and death such an approach would require invariably prompts a strong backlash. The language of herd immunity is part of the problem. A herd usually describes domesticated animals, especially livestock. Herd animals like cows, goats, or sheep are sacrificed for human consumption. Few humans want to be part of that kind of herd.

With potential vaccines for COVID-19 still likely to be many months away, and with lockdowns and social distancing causing social and economic disruption, there are no ideal options. British public health expert Raj Bhopal likened the situation to being in zugzwang, “a position in chess where every move is disadvantageous where we must examine every plan, however unpalatable”. He sought to overcome the animal connotations of “herd immunity” by encouraging the use of “population immunity” instead. Changing the label of herd immunity might remove the connotations but not fix the problem. Without a vaccine, many people would have to die from COVID-19 before population immunity is achieved.