-
Thanks. As stated- I couldn't find it in the mire of twitter posts and articles.
As @Chalfie says, it still represents a possible misunderstanding of causality- ie- herd immunity is a potential outcome of the policy, not the policy itself.
Vallance's response to Hancock's article will be interesting reading...I do think we need to step back a bit from demanding unproven strategies, and yes- this means potentially trusting our total omnishambles of a government.
Neither Taiwan nor Singapore shut schools or workplaces (though Taiwan kept schools closed following Lunar New year for 2 weeks).
Hong Kong- which has been seemingly similarly successful- shut everything.
Countries that have shut everything down have had mixed responses, with predominantly worse outcomes than Singapore, say.Nothing is proven to work- arguments against Taiwan, Singapore and HK may include the fact that there could be undertesting, they could be early in the viral spread, etc, etc.
Retrospectively- we can assess.
Proactively- we can plan based on best evidence. This brings the unpalatable possibility that the decision made was incorrect.
deleted-
Singapore is interesting (I looked because I'd a trip booked there in May).
They appear to be forensically investigating the transmission path (see link for an example). Whether they are able to do this because of the resources they have and the smallish numbers of identified cases, or the nature of the society/population, I don't know. However, the info might inform the government strategy.
peter_h
It was Sir Patrick Vallance who said it, @Fyoosh posted it up: