Contact reduction measures are a safe and necessary bridge to spring vaccination.
Trond Brun, Division Chief Physician, Division for Infectious Diseases; Steiner Skret, Assistant Clinic Director, Medical Clinic, Hawkland University Hospital / K2, UIP
This is a discussion post. This entry was posted in External Contributor and is supported by BT’s Discussion Department. Comments and analyzes are the author’s own.
Infectious consuming The patience of all of us. The fatigue of the action is evident even among us physicians. Since many of the older ones have been vaccinated, it is not surprising that more people are now talking about making the process easier. Neurologist Holver Nass is one of them.
In Wednesday’s PD, he explains a theory that closure and isolation can inhibit natural growth, where the kinder virus will take on variants and provide herd immunity for the long term. These are interesting reasons with biological reasoning. At the same time, it is a theory that lacks solid documentation.
Release the virus Kinder is the most dangerous strategy in the short term, in the hope that it will take virus types. Biology is unpredictable. The experience of the so-called British virus variant explains why more types of infections are no less dangerous. They may be the opposite. Countries that politicians have long underestimated Covit-19 are not a serious epidemic.
In contrast, countries like the United States and Brazil have higher mortality rates. A safe and secure way for Norway is to keep the epidemic under control until most people are vaccinated.
Here is their response post: “The authorities have made a big mistake”
How we hold Is the infection under control? Is Reinforced TISK (Testing, Isolation, Diagnosis and Isolation) Adequate? Low, local eruptions, such as ulvic, disk is important. In large flowers with an infectious pathway unknown to many, this is not enough. It is difficult to get around activities that reduce common contact in society.
Nass questions the effect of such actions. He cites California as the epicenter of a statewide epidemic with widespread strikes. However, there is conclusive evidence that reduced movement has an impact on infection. A new, comprehensive study of more than 50 different countries, which analyzed population patterns based on mobile phone data, found a clear link between reduced mobility and disease reduction (B. Novalet and colleagues, Nature Communications 2021).
The most successful in epidemics are countries with powerful, time-bound and geographically targeted activity, such as New Zealand, Australia and various Asian countries. It is really enough to see our own little country. A year ago, the country closed. Despite the fact that we do not have the capacity for adequate testing and infection monitoring, the infection subsides very quickly.
Out of proportion, Nass?
That it is uncertain It is true that any individual action has the greatest effect. It is correct that the value of the whole lid is uncertain compared to slightly higher target operations. However, there is no doubt that measures that reduce contact between people will have an impact on the epidemic. Of course, it should not be forgotten that these activities also have a great health and financial background. There, speaking voices for children, adolescents, and nursing home patients are important in giving greater accuracy to actions.
Nose also advocates a strategy that focuses on protecting the most vulnerable from infection and avoids extensive public action. This has previously been tried in Sweden and countries around the United Kingdom. As is well known, there is no success.
With so many types of infections, increasing infections and at the same time the possibility of vaccinating most of the risk groups within the next two months, it would be a mistake to open up society. This March underscores the sharp increase in hospital admissions and intensive care patients in eastern Norway. We can no longer trust theories of uncertainty.
But we probably are On the run-up side. It is about prolonging a certain period of time. The disadvantages of this radical proposal are small. Soon it will be vaccines, but not strikes, which will be the solution to this epidemic in Norway. On the way there, we have to keep the epidemic under control. This way we avoid experiencing a spring with congested health care, a very small rate of coronary heart disease leading to many more deaths and chronic illnesses.