[2020-03-23]为什么英国对新冠疫情的处理方法与其他国家如此不同？
文章原始标题：Why is the UK approach to COVID 19 coronavirus so different to other countries?
国外来源地址：https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-UK-approach-to-COVID-19-coronavirus-so-different-to-other-countries
该译文由蓝林网编辑，转载请声明来源（蓝林网）
内容简介： 通过中等效果的措施减缓疾病的发展，并在疫情传播期间努力保护高危群体。虽然R>1，但是会降低到略高于这个水平，所以卫生系统可以处理这些病例。最后，足够多的人感染，群体免疫开始发挥作用，将R永久性地降到1
AHChat.cn几乎无所不知帮我写一篇XX主题的文章讲稿→请帮我写个HTTP的GET访问代码→变形金刚是买车险，还是买人险？→
Paul Mainwood , British, most of the time
Slow the disease by medium-effectiveness measures and try to protect at-risk groups while the outbreak continues. R > 1 but is brought down to a little above that level, so the health system can cope with the cases. Finally, enough people will get it and herd immunity kicks in to push R permanently below 1. This is preferable in the long term because the outbreak really is stamped out rather than left smouldering, ready to flare up again and ultimately kill a larger number of people. But the moral issue is that more people will suffer and die in the near term under the mitigation strategy. And these are deaths which very visibly could have been avoided if asuppression strategy were followed instead.
Paul Mainwood 大多数时候是英国人
通过中等效果的措施减缓疾病的发展，并在疫情传播期间努力保护高危群体。虽然R>1，但是会降低到略高于这个水平，所以卫生系统可以处理这些病例。最后，足够多的人感染，群体免疫开始发挥作用，将R永久性地降到1以下。从长远来看，这是可行的，因为疫情真的被扑灭了，而不是任其闷烧随时准备再次爆发，最终杀死更多的人。但是道德上的问题是，在延缓策略下，会有更多的人在短期内痛苦并死亡。但如果采取阻断策略的话，这些死亡是可以容易避免的。
Mitigation is what was done in some US cities during 1918, and has been done in all flu pandemics since then (though not often spelled out) — that’s what the vaccinations for the old, young and vulnerable are about. And it was the strategy for this year’s COVID19 outbreak in the UK, in contrast to almost everywhere else.
The latest work contradicts earlier estimates that a mitigation strategy could work for the UK. New numbers have come out of Italy on the effectiveness of the the various approaches to slow the disease, especially on the very high numbers of intensive care beds needed, then the mitigation strategy has gone from a “risky but preferable if it works” strategy to one that is almost certain to overwhelm the NHS many, many times over.
So, now the UK is moving to the suppression strategy.
1918年，美国就开始在一些城市采取了延缓策略，此后所有流感大流行都采取了这种措施(尽管通常不会详细说明)——这就是为老年人、年轻人和弱势群体接种疫苗的目的。这也是英国今年新冠疫情爆发的策略，与其他地方形成鲜明的对比。
最新的研究结果与早些时候的预计相矛盾，之前认为延缓策略可能对英国有效。意大利对各种延缓疾病的方法的有效性给出了新的数据，特别是在需要大量重症监护病床的情况下，那么延缓策略已经从一个“有风险，但如果有效的话会更可行”的策略，变成了一个几乎肯定会压倒英国国家医疗服务体系的策略。
所以，现在英国正在转向阻断策略。
Unfortunately, the latest numbers show there is no other option. So the UK is changing course and its future actions are likely to look a lot more like those of the rest of the world.
Is there any good news? Only two pieces that I can see. One is that the numbers again confirm that this virus seems to almost entirely spare children.
The second is that - if you take this at face value - the UK government do appear to be guided by science and are taking a “When the facts change, I change my mind” attitude to policy. And that they maintain this even when attacked and mocked for changing course. I hope that continues.
不幸的是，最新的数据显示，并没有其他的选择。因此，英国正在改变方向，其未来的行动可能看上去会更像世界其它地区。
有什么好消息吗？ 我能看到的只有两点。 其一是，这些感染数据再次证实，这种病毒似乎几乎完全不会伤害儿童。
其二，如果你只是从表面上看，英国政府似乎确实受到了科学的指导，对政策采取了一种“当事实发生变化时，我也会改变主意”的态度。 即使在受到他人的攻击和嘲笑而改变方向，他们仍然坚持这一点。我希望这种态度能继续下去。
Robin Daverman , world traveler
Why is the UK approach to COVID 19 coronavirus so different to other countries?
This is the case fatality rate among 44,672 cases in China by Feb. 11:
This is the case fatality rate from Dr. Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelers (UK):
Basically the UK said, your 44,672 cases are all wrong. The numbers I pulled out of my a*se, without seeing a single patient, are correct.
And then the Italian numbers started streaming in, and those numbers are even worse than the Chinese numbers, … eh, maybe we need to “adjust our assumptions”?
Also, even though the WHO reported that Wuhan’s hospitals collapsed by late Jan, and it took 40,000 ICU and Pulmonary specialists from the other 30 provinces in China rushing in to prop up the emergency treatment there, that can’t possibly happen with our NHS here because in our model, not so many cases would need to be hospitalized in the UK…
Robin Daverman，环球旅行者
为什么英国处理新冠疫情的方法与其他国家这么不同？
这是截至2月11日，中国44672例病例中的病死率：
这是尼尔•弗格森博士的伦敦帝国理工学院模型的病死率：
基本上，英国就像说，你们44672个案例都是错误的。而我在没有看到任何一例病人的情况下，从我的a * se中提取出的数据是正确的。
然后意大利的数据开始涌入了，这些数据甚至比中国的数据还要严重，呃，也许我们需要“调整我们的预估”？
此外，尽管世界卫生组织报告说武汉的医院在1月下旬沦陷了，中国其他30个省的4万名ICU和肺科专家赶到那里支持紧急治疗，但这不可能发生在我们英国的国民医疗服务体系中的，因为在我们的模式中，英国没有那么多的病例需要住院...
And now Dr. Neil Ferguson himself may have been infected by Covid-19.
And Boris Johnson suddenly found out that the numbers may not be acceptable, and shifted a hundred eighty degrees, closed schools, and banned mass gathering.
At this point, it’s no longer possible to tell the reality in the UK from a bad soap opera. Everything that has happened sounded like bad jokes instead of real life.
PS: I wonder when these highly educated Brits will realize that the reality can not be changed by a model, but rather, for a model to be useful, it must reflect the reality. But even with the previous model, the casual acceptance of the large number of fatalities associated with (60% infected) “herd immunity” is classic Eugenics. Its association with Nazism made it a taboo subject since the end of WWII. I can’t believe it’s now openly practiced in the United Kingdom.
现在尼尔 · 弗格森博士自己可能也被新冠病毒感染了。
鲍里斯 · 约翰逊突然发现这些数字可能行不通，于是改变了方向，关闭了学校，禁止了大规模集会。
在这一点上，再也区分不了英国的现实和荒唐的肥皂剧了。 所发生的一切听起来都像是蹩脚的笑话，而不是真实的生活。
后语：我想知道这些受过高等教育的英国人什么时候才会意识到，现实不能被模型所改变，而是，为了让模型有用，它必须反映现实。 但是，即使使用以前的模型，随意就接受了(60%感染者)“群体免疫”造成的大量死亡，这是典型的优生学。它与纳粹主义的联系，使它自二战结束以来就成为一个禁忌的话题。我不敢相信现在英国公开实行这种做法。
Dan MacArtain
Because the UK's government decided to ‘deal’ with Covid-19 by first ignoring the experience of every other country, the WHO, and reality.
Basically, they were, and it is important to stress the Past Tense here, going to run a massive experiment using the UK as their sample, and the over-55s as the sacrificial victims.
Thankfully, reality was allowed back into the room, and slowly,grudgingly, and FAR TOO LATE, the UK is adopting WHO policy.
How many unnecessary deaths will result from this lunatic exercise in British exceptionalism is unknown. But ONE is too many.
'Died from governmental hubris and stupidity' doesn't look good on anyone's grave stone…
Dan MacArtain
因为英国政府决定先无视其他国家的经验、世界卫生组织和现实情况，来‘处理’新冠疫情。
基本上，他们曾打算，这里强调“曾”是很重要的，他们曾打算把英国作为样本，用55岁以上的人作为牺牲品，进行一个大规模的实验。
值得庆幸的是，现实打脸了，英国才慢慢地，不情愿地，而且很迟采用世卫组织的策略。
这种荒唐的英国例外论将导致多少不必要的死亡，目前还不得而知，但死一个也已经太多了。
墓碑上刻着“死于政府的傲慢和愚蠢”，怎么样都不好看吧...
Jerzy Kolodziej , Runs a NGO "Law Against Injustice" promoting constitutional reform in the OT's
I am afraid it is simply that the UK have given up. See the real; reason for the hands off policy…UK coronavirus crisis 'to last until spring 2021 and could see 7.9m hospitalised'
The UK cannot keep up with testing and has lost control of the situation. They are now presenting failure as a plan. It certainly is not a plan based on science Some scientists say UK virus strategy 'risks lives' and I’m an epidemiologist. When I heard about Britain’s ‘herd immunity’ coronavirus plan, I thought it was satire | William Hanage
I am afraid that the UK is set to go to hell in handbasket and my son is stuck in Kings College and will have to face this crisis alone. My mum has pneumonia and they won’t test, and my sister is ill equipped to weather the storm.
Jerzy Kolodziej，经营一个非政府组织“反不公正法” ，推动OT的宪政改革
恐怕原因很简单，英国已经放弃了。如果英国新冠病毒危机持续到2021年春季，可能会有790万人住院治疗。
英国无法跟上检测的步伐，已经失去了对局势的控制。他们现在把失败当作一个计划。这当然不是一个基于科学的计划。一些科学家说英国的病毒策略是“拿生命去冒险” ，而我是一名流行病学家。当我听说英国的“群体免疫”计划时，我还以为这是讽刺。
我很担心，英国注定走向毁灭，而我的儿子被困在伦敦国王学院，必须得独自面对这场危机了。我妈得了肺炎，他们不肯检测，我的妹妹也没有足够的准备来经受这场风暴。
Stuart Thomas , studied Health at University of Hull (1988)
We have a healthcare system that is in lock-step from top to bottom. The government advisers who specialise in this type of scenario also work within that system (as well as the universities since the majority of healthcare trusts are teaching institutions). We don't have doctors, hospitals or laboratories trying to out-do each other or trying to make a profit. Our politicians act responsibly and listen to that expert advice.
Being a nation with a very long history we know it is pointless to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Closing borders and shutting down transportation after you have confirmed cases is pointless
The British public are generally sensible and rational, they will mostly take advice when it is given and act in the best interest of everyone not just themselves. It's why we have so few mass shootings, when we see a problem we calmly deal with it. The world knows we are at our best when our backs are against the wall and the only thing to do is pull together.
Stuart Thomas ，赫尔大学健康专业(1988)
我们有一个自上而下的医疗保健系统。 专门研究这类情况的政府顾问也在该体系内工作(大学也是如此，因为大多数医疗信托机构都是教学机构)。 我们的医生、医院或者实验室不想竞争或者实现盈利。我们的政治家采取负责任的行动，听从专家的建议。
作为一个有着悠久历史的国家，我们知道在马脱缰之后，再锁上马厩的门是毫无意义的。在确诊病例后封锁边境和关闭交通是毫无意义的。
英国公众通常都是明智和理性的，他们大多数时候会接受建议，并会为了每个人的最大利益而行动，而不仅仅是为了他们自己。 这就是为什么我们很少发生大规模枪击事件，当我们看到问题时，我们会冷静地处理它。世界知道，当我们背水一战时，我们就是处于最佳状态，我们唯一能做的就是齐心协力。
Piotr Balwierz , Researcher at Imperial College London (2013-present)
Here is my explanation of the Imperial College report: the curves you have already seen. I originally posted it on Blogger: Explanation why Boris Johnson's decision about pandemic is probably right [UK]
(Disclaimer: I work at Imperial College, but I was not involved in this study. I do not model epidemics myself.)
There has been a lot of criticism about Boris Johnson’s coronavirus plan. But scientists think it could work better than WHO plan. Here is the rationale: It is much too late to stop pandemic from happening in the UK and virtually in any other country on the Planet except Korea, People’s Republic of China, Singapore plus maybe some smaller countries. Regardless what we do now in about 6 weeks (late April / early May) UK will enter a critical period of a large portion of the population infected with many more patients critically ill than beds, ventilators and hospital staff available. The UK is trying to increase the personnel, but there are serious limitations when it comes to ventilators. Majority of retired NHS staff don't want to return to tackle Covid-19 crisis .
Piotr Balwierz ，伦敦帝国理工学院研究员(2013年至今)
下面是我对帝国理工学院报告的解释：你们已经看到过数据曲线。我最初把它贴在博客上，解释为什么鲍里斯 · 约翰逊关于流行病的决定可能是正确的。
(免责声明: 我在帝国理工学院工作，但我没有参与这项研究。我自己也没有做流行病的模型。)
鲍里斯 · 约翰逊的新冠病毒计划受到了很多批评。但是科学家们认为这可能比世界卫生组织的计划更有效。这里有一个基本原理：现在要阻止英国的流感大流行已经为时已晚了，实际上，除了韩国、中华人民共和国、新加坡以及一些较小的国家，其他任何国家都已经无法阻止这场大流行了。不管我们现在怎么做，在大约6周内(4月底或5月初) ，英国将进入一个关键时期，很大一部分人口感染了，危重病人数超过了病床、呼吸机和医院工作人员。英国正在努力增加人员，但呼吸机严重不够。大多数已经退休的医疗保健员工不想回来处理新冠危机。
The Imperial College team have a top-level expertise in pandemic modelling. A couple of days ago they published a report titled Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID- 19 mortality and healthcare demand .
UK government’s bet is that a new vaccine won’t be available in this year. But most likely people who recovered from infection will become immune. At least this is what a study on animals shows.
帝国理工学院的团队拥有流行病模型的顶级专业知识。 几天前，他们发表了一份题为《非药物干预的影响》的报告，该报告旨在降低新冠疫情的死亡率和医疗保健的需求。
英国政府打赌今年不会有新的疫苗问世。但是最有可能的是，那些从感染中恢复过来的大多数人会获得免疫力。至少对动物的研究表明了这一点。
Herd immunity is normally obtained by vaccination. For instance in the case of measles every person who is vaccinated becomes immune, thus invisible for measles virus. Virus cannot infect such person and cannot spread through that person. Above some proportion of immune people the disease will stop spreading even if not everybody would be immune. The scientists estimate this threshold to be 60% of the population. Herd immunity does not mean that any single person is safe. It means that small outbreaks will extinguish themselves locally. From Autumn all people who evaded infections will be relatively safe, but not 100% safe.
Imagine fire which has burnt most of grass on a field, but some clumps of grass evaded the fire. Now if one of these clumps catches fire, it might get burnt, but it won’t spread fire to other disconnected clumps!
群体免疫通常是通过接种疫苗实现的。例如，在麻疹病例中，每个接种过疫苗的人都具有免疫力，因此麻疹病毒看不见。病毒不能感染这种人，也不能通过这种人传播。超过一定比例的免疫者，即使没有每个人都能免疫，疾病也会停止传播。科学家们估计这个阈值是人口的60%。群体免疫并不意味着任何个体都是安全的。这意味着小规模疫情将在局部自行消失。从秋季开始，所有逃过感染的人都会相对安全，但不是百分百安全。
想象一下，大火烧尽了田野上大部分的草，但是有些草躲过了大火。现在，如果这些小块草地中的一块着火了，它可能会被烧毁，但它不会蔓延到其他没有连接一起的部分！
Terry Mummery , former Currently central It Support Team telecoms at British Telecommunications (1972-2010)
Every country is different and each has a unique solution. this is still very early in the epidemic, It would be informative to review the solutions after the epidemic has receded.
It depends upon the way the ‘experts’ read the spread of the virus and its infection rate.
From what I gather currently Europe is just ending Winter and has been fighting an influenza outbreak, as it does every year, resources are tight but are designed to manage that. The COVID-19 is highly infectious and targets elderly and those with compromised immune systems, these people need hospital treatment. Some need intensive care.if this hit the health system at this time there would be a massive increase in deaths as the system collapses. Italy is an example where their health system could not cope.
Terry Mummery ，英国电信公司IT支持小组（1972-2010年）
每个国家都是不同的，每个国家都有自己独特的解决方案。 流行病仍然处于非常早期，在流行消退后，审查解决办法将是有帮助的。这取决于“专家”解读病毒传播及其感染率的方式。
据我所知，目前欧洲刚刚结束冬季，并一直在与流感疫情作斗争，每年都是如此，资源紧张但就是用于应对这种情况的。 新冠病毒具有高度传染性，目标是老年人和免疫系统受损的人群，这些人需要住院治疗。 一些人需要加强护理，如果这次冲击到卫生系统，随着系统崩溃，死亡人数将大幅增加。 意大利就是一个卫生系统崩溃的例子。
Roberto Cazzaro , lived in The United Kingdom
The UK had a very detailed plan, developed by experts after SARS and H1N1, and taking into account scientific information, socioeconomic data and behavioral analysis. You can find iy here Responding to a UK flu pandemic. As much as some parts of that plan seem cynical, it took into account how people react in real life to containment (not well) and the impact on the economy of shutting down a country
Initially, the UK followed this plan to the letter, as expected. Once new data from the hospitalization rates in Italy became clear, though, it was realized that the assumptions the plan was based on, where not correct in this case, and they had to change direction dramatically.
I don't think people have internalized how long isolation must be maintained, and how likely it is to have multiple waves until a vaccine is found. Shutting down an entire country for weeks can cause economic damage that can lead to secondary deaths as well. At this point it's clear that a strong lickdiwn is needed, but the initial response was based on sound science based on what was known at the time
Roberto Cazzaro ，住在英国
英国有一个非常详细的计划，由非典和H1N1后的专家制定，并考虑到科学信息，社会经济数据和行为分析。 你可以在这里找到应对英国流感大流行的方法。尽管该计划的某些部分看起来有些愤世嫉俗，但它考虑到了人们在现实生活中对遏制措施（效果不好）的反应，以及关闭一个国家对经济的影响。
最初，正如预期的那样，英国严格遵循了这一计划。然而，一旦意大利住院率的新数据变得清晰起来，人们就意识到这个计划所依据的假设，在这种情况下并不正确，他们不得不大幅度地改变方向。
我认为人们还没有意识到隔离状态需要维持多长时间，以及在找到疫苗之前出现反复的可能性。 关闭整个国家数个星期可能造成经济损失，也可能导致二次死亡。在这一点上，显然需要强有力的支持，但最初的反应是基于当时已知的合理科学判断。
Iain Smith , Graduate at the University of Life (1900-present)
I believe a large part of the answer is that the UK government has a large majority and, while not totally insensitive to public opinion, does not feel the need to automatically do whatever the public demands。
I believe our government’s approach is based closely on its advisers who include people with a very good track record with Ebola. They are primarily scientists and have teams modelling the complex mathematics involved, and this should therefore deliver fewer total deaths.
The UK government may be diverted from its rational path if Conservative MPs rebel, as I suspect they may start to. But if MPs can be persuaded to hold the line, then the UK could in a year or two be revealed to have handled the crisis very well.
The Chinese government, while strongly in control, had no time to think things through and much less information than is now available and chose the draconian approach. They cannot be faulted for that.
Iain Smith ，毕业于生命大学(1900年至今)
我认为，很大一部分原因在于英国政府拥有主要话语权，尽管它并非完全无视公众意见，但它并不认为有必要自动地按照公众的要求行事。
我相信我们政府的方法是基于它的顾问，这些顾问包括那些在埃博拉病毒方面有良好成绩的人。他们主要是科学家，并有团队模拟涉及到的复杂数学，因此，这应该会总死亡减少。
如果保守党议员反叛的话，英国政府可能会偏离其理性的方式，我猜想他们可能已经开始这样做了。 但如果能说服国会议员保持这一决定，那么一两年后人们就会发现，英国在这场危机中处理得非常好。
虽然中国控制得很好，但没有时间考虑周全，信息也比现在少得多，因此选择了更为严厉的方式。他们不能因此受到指责。
Steve Jones , studied at Imperial College London
“Why is the UK approach to COVID 19 coronavirus so different to other countries?”
It’s not so different to many European countries. There are differences in the detail, such as when schools are closed, but it’s essentially the same pattern of trying to control rate of spread of the virus by a series of staged measures.
There are mathematical models about this. My old college has been heavily involved with this, and there’s a very interesting publication they produced yesterday (16th March) on the modelling and assumptions and how that has been modified as new data has come through the system; not just new stats in the UK, but also from the rest of the world.
Steve Jones ，就读于伦敦帝国理工学院
“为什么英国处理新冠病毒的方法与其他国家这么不同? ”
其实这和许多欧洲国家没什么不同。只是在细节上有所不同，比如学校什么时候关闭，但本质上是同样的模式，试图通过一系列分阶段的措施控制病毒的传播速度。
关于这个问题有数学模型。 我以前的学院一直密切参与其中，昨天(3月16日)他们出版了一份非常有趣的出版物，内容是关于模型和假设，以及随着新数据的加入，模型是如何修改的，不仅仅是英国的新数据，还有来自世界其他地方的数据。
Jonathan Tan , was an avid reader of science magazines
Because somehow they are being advised by people who think they are more knowledgeable about the virus than this guy (and his team)
Who is this guy? He’s the WHO main guy who went into Wuhan, boots on the ground. And he’s a medical expert leading a team of medical experts.
Jonathan Tan 科学杂志的忠实读者
因为有些人认为他们比某个家伙(和他的团队)更了解这种病毒，所以不知怎么的，他们就听信了这些人的建议。
那某个家伙是谁？他是进入武汉的世界卫生组织的重要人物，脚踏实地。 他是一名医学专家，领导着一个医学专家团队。
Caroline Chen , studied at University of Nanchang
Because they do not feel COVID - 19 is terrible. A novel by Jane Austin, called pride and prejudice, is a perfect descr1iption of the state of government and the majority of the British people, or so it has always been. They left minor cases untreated and isolated, allowing the disease to infect more people in the hope of forming "crowd immunity".
Caroline Chen ，就读于南昌大学
因为他们不觉得新冠病毒有多可怕。简 · 奥斯汀的小说《傲慢与偏见》是对英国政府和大多数英国人的完美描述，至少一直如此。他们没有对少量病例的治疗和隔离，使这种疾病感染更多的人，希望形成“群体免疫”。
Keith Jackson , General Manager
It could be that governments in other countries are bowing to press, TV & other forms of media pressure & who don’t follow scientific specialists advice. Let’s face it no one really knows what to do in these circumstances so surely it’s better to follow & listen to the people who spend large parts of their working days preparing for these events than listen to the pressure from the press. Just imagine if the government followed the media they would then be saying why Arn’t the government following the scientists advice.1
Keith Jackson 、总经理
可能是其他国家的政府屈从于媒体、电视和其他形式的媒体压力，还有他们不听从科学专家的建议。让我们面对现实吧，没有人真正知道在这种情况下该怎么做，因此，追随和倾听那些在这件事花费大量工作时间做准备的人，肯定比听从媒体的压力要好。想象一下，如果政府听从媒体的建议，他们会说为什么政府不听从科学家的建议。
Chai Patel , lives in The United Kingdom
A newborn in London has tested positive for the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, just minutes after being born to a mother who was also infected with the virus, according to news reports.
Days prior to giving birth, the woman was admitted to a hospital for symptoms of pneumonia, finding out she had tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19 only after her baby was born at North Middlesex hospital in Enfield, in north London, The Guardian reported.
According to The Sun, the baby was being treated at the hospital, while the mother had been transferred to an infectious-diseases hospital.
It is not known when the child contracted the disease. "We can't say it happened while the baby was still in the womb," Dr William Schaffner, a professor of Preventive Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told Live Science. The baby could have also contracted the virus during, or immediately after, birth, Schaffner said.
Chai Patel ，生活在英国
据新闻报道，伦敦一名新生儿被检测出新冠病毒呈阳性，几分钟前，她的母亲也检测到感染了这种病毒。
据英国《卫报》报道，在分娩前几天，这名妇女因肺炎症状住进了医院，但在她的孩子在恩菲尔德的北米德尔塞克斯医院出生后，她才发现自己的新冠病毒检测呈阳性。
据《太阳报》报道，婴儿正在医院接受治疗，而母亲已被转移到传染病医院。
目前还不知道这个新生儿是在什么时候染上这种疾病的。“我们无法说这是在婴儿还在子宫里的时候就被传染的” 威廉·沙夫纳博士说，他是范德堡大学医学院预防医学和传染病的教授。 沙夫纳说，婴儿也可能在出生时或出生后立即感染了这种病毒。
Slow the disease by medium-effectiveness measures and try to protect at-risk groups while the outbreak continues. R > 1 but is brought down to a little above that level, so the health system can cope with the cases. Finally, enough people will get it and herd immunity kicks in to push R permanently below 1. This is preferable in the long term because the outbreak really is stamped out rather than left smouldering, ready to flare up again and ultimately kill a larger number of people. But the moral issue is that more people will suffer and die in the near term under the mitigation strategy. And these are deaths which very visibly could have been avoided if asuppression strategy were followed instead.
Paul Mainwood 大多数时候是英国人
通过中等效果的措施减缓疾病的发展，并在疫情传播期间努力保护高危群体。虽然R>1，但是会降低到略高于这个水平，所以卫生系统可以处理这些病例。最后，足够多的人感染，群体免疫开始发挥作用，将R永久性地降到1以下。从长远来看，这是可行的，因为疫情真的被扑灭了，而不是任其闷烧随时准备再次爆发，最终杀死更多的人。但是道德上的问题是，在延缓策略下，会有更多的人在短期内痛苦并死亡。但如果采取阻断策略的话，这些死亡是可以容易避免的。
Mitigation is what was done in some US cities during 1918, and has been done in all flu pandemics since then (though not often spelled out) — that’s what the vaccinations for the old, young and vulnerable are about. And it was the strategy for this year’s COVID19 outbreak in the UK, in contrast to almost everywhere else.
The latest work contradicts earlier estimates that a mitigation strategy could work for the UK. New numbers have come out of Italy on the effectiveness of the the various approaches to slow the disease, especially on the very high numbers of intensive care beds needed, then the mitigation strategy has gone from a “risky but preferable if it works” strategy to one that is almost certain to overwhelm the NHS many, many times over.
So, now the UK is moving to the suppression strategy.
1918年，美国就开始在一些城市采取了延缓策略，此后所有流感大流行都采取了这种措施(尽管通常不会详细说明)——这就是为老年人、年轻人和弱势群体接种疫苗的目的。这也是英国今年新冠疫情爆发的策略，与其他地方形成鲜明的对比。
最新的研究结果与早些时候的预计相矛盾，之前认为延缓策略可能对英国有效。意大利对各种延缓疾病的方法的有效性给出了新的数据，特别是在需要大量重症监护病床的情况下，那么延缓策略已经从一个“有风险，但如果有效的话会更可行”的策略，变成了一个几乎肯定会压倒英国国家医疗服务体系的策略。
所以，现在英国正在转向阻断策略。
Unfortunately, the latest numbers show there is no other option. So the UK is changing course and its future actions are likely to look a lot more like those of the rest of the world.
Is there any good news? Only two pieces that I can see. One is that the numbers again confirm that this virus seems to almost entirely spare children.
The second is that - if you take this at face value - the UK government do appear to be guided by science and are taking a “When the facts change, I change my mind” attitude to policy. And that they maintain this even when attacked and mocked for changing course. I hope that continues.
不幸的是，最新的数据显示，并没有其他的选择。因此，英国正在改变方向，其未来的行动可能看上去会更像世界其它地区。
有什么好消息吗？ 我能看到的只有两点。 其一是，这些感染数据再次证实，这种病毒似乎几乎完全不会伤害儿童。
其二，如果你只是从表面上看，英国政府似乎确实受到了科学的指导，对政策采取了一种“当事实发生变化时，我也会改变主意”的态度。 即使在受到他人的攻击和嘲笑而改变方向，他们仍然坚持这一点。我希望这种态度能继续下去。
Robin Daverman , world traveler
Why is the UK approach to COVID 19 coronavirus so different to other countries?
This is the case fatality rate among 44,672 cases in China by Feb. 11:
This is the case fatality rate from Dr. Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelers (UK):
Basically the UK said, your 44,672 cases are all wrong. The numbers I pulled out of my a*se, without seeing a single patient, are correct.
And then the Italian numbers started streaming in, and those numbers are even worse than the Chinese numbers, … eh, maybe we need to “adjust our assumptions”?
Also, even though the WHO reported that Wuhan’s hospitals collapsed by late Jan, and it took 40,000 ICU and Pulmonary specialists from the other 30 provinces in China rushing in to prop up the emergency treatment there, that can’t possibly happen with our NHS here because in our model, not so many cases would need to be hospitalized in the UK…
Robin Daverman，环球旅行者
为什么英国处理新冠疫情的方法与其他国家这么不同？
这是截至2月11日，中国44672例病例中的病死率：
这是尼尔•弗格森博士的伦敦帝国理工学院模型的病死率：
基本上，英国就像说，你们44672个案例都是错误的。而我在没有看到任何一例病人的情况下，从我的a * se中提取出的数据是正确的。
然后意大利的数据开始涌入了，这些数据甚至比中国的数据还要严重，呃，也许我们需要“调整我们的预估”？
此外，尽管世界卫生组织报告说武汉的医院在1月下旬沦陷了，中国其他30个省的4万名ICU和肺科专家赶到那里支持紧急治疗，但这不可能发生在我们英国的国民医疗服务体系中的，因为在我们的模式中，英国没有那么多的病例需要住院...
And now Dr. Neil Ferguson himself may have been infected by Covid-19.
And Boris Johnson suddenly found out that the numbers may not be acceptable, and shifted a hundred eighty degrees, closed schools, and banned mass gathering.
At this point, it’s no longer possible to tell the reality in the UK from a bad soap opera. Everything that has happened sounded like bad jokes instead of real life.
PS: I wonder when these highly educated Brits will realize that the reality can not be changed by a model, but rather, for a model to be useful, it must reflect the reality. But even with the previous model, the casual acceptance of the large number of fatalities associated with (60% infected) “herd immunity” is classic Eugenics. Its association with Nazism made it a taboo subject since the end of WWII. I can’t believe it’s now openly practiced in the United Kingdom.
现在尼尔 · 弗格森博士自己可能也被新冠病毒感染了。
鲍里斯 · 约翰逊突然发现这些数字可能行不通，于是改变了方向，关闭了学校，禁止了大规模集会。
在这一点上，再也区分不了英国的现实和荒唐的肥皂剧了。 所发生的一切听起来都像是蹩脚的笑话，而不是真实的生活。
后语：我想知道这些受过高等教育的英国人什么时候才会意识到，现实不能被模型所改变，而是，为了让模型有用，它必须反映现实。 但是，即使使用以前的模型，随意就接受了(60%感染者)“群体免疫”造成的大量死亡，这是典型的优生学。它与纳粹主义的联系，使它自二战结束以来就成为一个禁忌的话题。我不敢相信现在英国公开实行这种做法。
Dan MacArtain
Because the UK's government decided to ‘deal’ with Covid-19 by first ignoring the experience of every other country, the WHO, and reality.
Basically, they were, and it is important to stress the Past Tense here, going to run a massive experiment using the UK as their sample, and the over-55s as the sacrificial victims.
Thankfully, reality was allowed back into the room, and slowly,grudgingly, and FAR TOO LATE, the UK is adopting WHO policy.
How many unnecessary deaths will result from this lunatic exercise in British exceptionalism is unknown. But ONE is too many.
'Died from governmental hubris and stupidity' doesn't look good on anyone's grave stone…
Dan MacArtain
因为英国政府决定先无视其他国家的经验、世界卫生组织和现实情况，来‘处理’新冠疫情。
基本上，他们曾打算，这里强调“曾”是很重要的，他们曾打算把英国作为样本，用55岁以上的人作为牺牲品，进行一个大规模的实验。
值得庆幸的是，现实打脸了，英国才慢慢地，不情愿地，而且很迟采用世卫组织的策略。
这种荒唐的英国例外论将导致多少不必要的死亡，目前还不得而知，但死一个也已经太多了。
墓碑上刻着“死于政府的傲慢和愚蠢”，怎么样都不好看吧...
Jerzy Kolodziej , Runs a NGO "Law Against Injustice" promoting constitutional reform in the OT's
I am afraid it is simply that the UK have given up. See the real; reason for the hands off policy…UK coronavirus crisis 'to last until spring 2021 and could see 7.9m hospitalised'
The UK cannot keep up with testing and has lost control of the situation. They are now presenting failure as a plan. It certainly is not a plan based on science Some scientists say UK virus strategy 'risks lives' and I’m an epidemiologist. When I heard about Britain’s ‘herd immunity’ coronavirus plan, I thought it was satire | William Hanage
I am afraid that the UK is set to go to hell in handbasket and my son is stuck in Kings College and will have to face this crisis alone. My mum has pneumonia and they won’t test, and my sister is ill equipped to weather the storm.
Jerzy Kolodziej，经营一个非政府组织“反不公正法” ，推动OT的宪政改革
恐怕原因很简单，英国已经放弃了。如果英国新冠病毒危机持续到2021年春季，可能会有790万人住院治疗。
英国无法跟上检测的步伐，已经失去了对局势的控制。他们现在把失败当作一个计划。这当然不是一个基于科学的计划。一些科学家说英国的病毒策略是“拿生命去冒险” ，而我是一名流行病学家。当我听说英国的“群体免疫”计划时，我还以为这是讽刺。
我很担心，英国注定走向毁灭，而我的儿子被困在伦敦国王学院，必须得独自面对这场危机了。我妈得了肺炎，他们不肯检测，我的妹妹也没有足够的准备来经受这场风暴。
Stuart Thomas , studied Health at University of Hull (1988)
We have a healthcare system that is in lock-step from top to bottom. The government advisers who specialise in this type of scenario also work within that system (as well as the universities since the majority of healthcare trusts are teaching institutions). We don't have doctors, hospitals or laboratories trying to out-do each other or trying to make a profit. Our politicians act responsibly and listen to that expert advice.
Being a nation with a very long history we know it is pointless to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Closing borders and shutting down transportation after you have confirmed cases is pointless
The British public are generally sensible and rational, they will mostly take advice when it is given and act in the best interest of everyone not just themselves. It's why we have so few mass shootings, when we see a problem we calmly deal with it. The world knows we are at our best when our backs are against the wall and the only thing to do is pull together.
Stuart Thomas ，赫尔大学健康专业(1988)
我们有一个自上而下的医疗保健系统。 专门研究这类情况的政府顾问也在该体系内工作(大学也是如此，因为大多数医疗信托机构都是教学机构)。 我们的医生、医院或者实验室不想竞争或者实现盈利。我们的政治家采取负责任的行动，听从专家的建议。
作为一个有着悠久历史的国家，我们知道在马脱缰之后，再锁上马厩的门是毫无意义的。在确诊病例后封锁边境和关闭交通是毫无意义的。
英国公众通常都是明智和理性的，他们大多数时候会接受建议，并会为了每个人的最大利益而行动，而不仅仅是为了他们自己。 这就是为什么我们很少发生大规模枪击事件，当我们看到问题时，我们会冷静地处理它。世界知道，当我们背水一战时，我们就是处于最佳状态，我们唯一能做的就是齐心协力。
Piotr Balwierz , Researcher at Imperial College London (2013-present)
Here is my explanation of the Imperial College report: the curves you have already seen. I originally posted it on Blogger: Explanation why Boris Johnson's decision about pandemic is probably right [UK]
(Disclaimer: I work at Imperial College, but I was not involved in this study. I do not model epidemics myself.)
There has been a lot of criticism about Boris Johnson’s coronavirus plan. But scientists think it could work better than WHO plan. Here is the rationale: It is much too late to stop pandemic from happening in the UK and virtually in any other country on the Planet except Korea, People’s Republic of China, Singapore plus maybe some smaller countries. Regardless what we do now in about 6 weeks (late April / early May) UK will enter a critical period of a large portion of the population infected with many more patients critically ill than beds, ventilators and hospital staff available. The UK is trying to increase the personnel, but there are serious limitations when it comes to ventilators. Majority of retired NHS staff don't want to return to tackle Covid-19 crisis .
Piotr Balwierz ，伦敦帝国理工学院研究员(2013年至今)
下面是我对帝国理工学院报告的解释：你们已经看到过数据曲线。我最初把它贴在博客上，解释为什么鲍里斯 · 约翰逊关于流行病的决定可能是正确的。
(免责声明: 我在帝国理工学院工作，但我没有参与这项研究。我自己也没有做流行病的模型。)
鲍里斯 · 约翰逊的新冠病毒计划受到了很多批评。但是科学家们认为这可能比世界卫生组织的计划更有效。这里有一个基本原理：现在要阻止英国的流感大流行已经为时已晚了，实际上，除了韩国、中华人民共和国、新加坡以及一些较小的国家，其他任何国家都已经无法阻止这场大流行了。不管我们现在怎么做，在大约6周内(4月底或5月初) ，英国将进入一个关键时期，很大一部分人口感染了，危重病人数超过了病床、呼吸机和医院工作人员。英国正在努力增加人员，但呼吸机严重不够。大多数已经退休的医疗保健员工不想回来处理新冠危机。
The Imperial College team have a top-level expertise in pandemic modelling. A couple of days ago they published a report titled Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID- 19 mortality and healthcare demand .
UK government’s bet is that a new vaccine won’t be available in this year. But most likely people who recovered from infection will become immune. At least this is what a study on animals shows.
帝国理工学院的团队拥有流行病模型的顶级专业知识。 几天前，他们发表了一份题为《非药物干预的影响》的报告，该报告旨在降低新冠疫情的死亡率和医疗保健的需求。
英国政府打赌今年不会有新的疫苗问世。但是最有可能的是，那些从感染中恢复过来的大多数人会获得免疫力。至少对动物的研究表明了这一点。
Herd immunity is normally obtained by vaccination. For instance in the case of measles every person who is vaccinated becomes immune, thus invisible for measles virus. Virus cannot infect such person and cannot spread through that person. Above some proportion of immune people the disease will stop spreading even if not everybody would be immune. The scientists estimate this threshold to be 60% of the population. Herd immunity does not mean that any single person is safe. It means that small outbreaks will extinguish themselves locally. From Autumn all people who evaded infections will be relatively safe, but not 100% safe.
Imagine fire which has burnt most of grass on a field, but some clumps of grass evaded the fire. Now if one of these clumps catches fire, it might get burnt, but it won’t spread fire to other disconnected clumps!
群体免疫通常是通过接种疫苗实现的。例如，在麻疹病例中，每个接种过疫苗的人都具有免疫力，因此麻疹病毒看不见。病毒不能感染这种人，也不能通过这种人传播。超过一定比例的免疫者，即使没有每个人都能免疫，疾病也会停止传播。科学家们估计这个阈值是人口的60%。群体免疫并不意味着任何个体都是安全的。这意味着小规模疫情将在局部自行消失。从秋季开始，所有逃过感染的人都会相对安全，但不是百分百安全。
想象一下，大火烧尽了田野上大部分的草，但是有些草躲过了大火。现在，如果这些小块草地中的一块着火了，它可能会被烧毁，但它不会蔓延到其他没有连接一起的部分！
Terry Mummery , former Currently central It Support Team telecoms at British Telecommunications (1972-2010)
Every country is different and each has a unique solution. this is still very early in the epidemic, It would be informative to review the solutions after the epidemic has receded.
It depends upon the way the ‘experts’ read the spread of the virus and its infection rate.
From what I gather currently Europe is just ending Winter and has been fighting an influenza outbreak, as it does every year, resources are tight but are designed to manage that. The COVID-19 is highly infectious and targets elderly and those with compromised immune systems, these people need hospital treatment. Some need intensive care.if this hit the health system at this time there would be a massive increase in deaths as the system collapses. Italy is an example where their health system could not cope.
Terry Mummery ，英国电信公司IT支持小组（1972-2010年）
每个国家都是不同的，每个国家都有自己独特的解决方案。 流行病仍然处于非常早期，在流行消退后，审查解决办法将是有帮助的。这取决于“专家”解读病毒传播及其感染率的方式。
据我所知，目前欧洲刚刚结束冬季，并一直在与流感疫情作斗争，每年都是如此，资源紧张但就是用于应对这种情况的。 新冠病毒具有高度传染性，目标是老年人和免疫系统受损的人群，这些人需要住院治疗。 一些人需要加强护理，如果这次冲击到卫生系统，随着系统崩溃，死亡人数将大幅增加。 意大利就是一个卫生系统崩溃的例子。
Roberto Cazzaro , lived in The United Kingdom
The UK had a very detailed plan, developed by experts after SARS and H1N1, and taking into account scientific information, socioeconomic data and behavioral analysis. You can find iy here Responding to a UK flu pandemic. As much as some parts of that plan seem cynical, it took into account how people react in real life to containment (not well) and the impact on the economy of shutting down a country
Initially, the UK followed this plan to the letter, as expected. Once new data from the hospitalization rates in Italy became clear, though, it was realized that the assumptions the plan was based on, where not correct in this case, and they had to change direction dramatically.
I don't think people have internalized how long isolation must be maintained, and how likely it is to have multiple waves until a vaccine is found. Shutting down an entire country for weeks can cause economic damage that can lead to secondary deaths as well. At this point it's clear that a strong lickdiwn is needed, but the initial response was based on sound science based on what was known at the time
Roberto Cazzaro ，住在英国
英国有一个非常详细的计划，由非典和H1N1后的专家制定，并考虑到科学信息，社会经济数据和行为分析。 你可以在这里找到应对英国流感大流行的方法。尽管该计划的某些部分看起来有些愤世嫉俗，但它考虑到了人们在现实生活中对遏制措施（效果不好）的反应，以及关闭一个国家对经济的影响。
最初，正如预期的那样，英国严格遵循了这一计划。然而，一旦意大利住院率的新数据变得清晰起来，人们就意识到这个计划所依据的假设，在这种情况下并不正确，他们不得不大幅度地改变方向。
我认为人们还没有意识到隔离状态需要维持多长时间，以及在找到疫苗之前出现反复的可能性。 关闭整个国家数个星期可能造成经济损失，也可能导致二次死亡。在这一点上，显然需要强有力的支持，但最初的反应是基于当时已知的合理科学判断。
Iain Smith , Graduate at the University of Life (1900-present)
I believe a large part of the answer is that the UK government has a large majority and, while not totally insensitive to public opinion, does not feel the need to automatically do whatever the public demands。
I believe our government’s approach is based closely on its advisers who include people with a very good track record with Ebola. They are primarily scientists and have teams modelling the complex mathematics involved, and this should therefore deliver fewer total deaths.
The UK government may be diverted from its rational path if Conservative MPs rebel, as I suspect they may start to. But if MPs can be persuaded to hold the line, then the UK could in a year or two be revealed to have handled the crisis very well.
The Chinese government, while strongly in control, had no time to think things through and much less information than is now available and chose the draconian approach. They cannot be faulted for that.
Iain Smith ，毕业于生命大学(1900年至今)
我认为，很大一部分原因在于英国政府拥有主要话语权，尽管它并非完全无视公众意见，但它并不认为有必要自动地按照公众的要求行事。
我相信我们政府的方法是基于它的顾问，这些顾问包括那些在埃博拉病毒方面有良好成绩的人。他们主要是科学家，并有团队模拟涉及到的复杂数学，因此，这应该会总死亡减少。
如果保守党议员反叛的话，英国政府可能会偏离其理性的方式，我猜想他们可能已经开始这样做了。 但如果能说服国会议员保持这一决定，那么一两年后人们就会发现，英国在这场危机中处理得非常好。
虽然中国控制得很好，但没有时间考虑周全，信息也比现在少得多，因此选择了更为严厉的方式。他们不能因此受到指责。
Steve Jones , studied at Imperial College London
“Why is the UK approach to COVID 19 coronavirus so different to other countries?”
It’s not so different to many European countries. There are differences in the detail, such as when schools are closed, but it’s essentially the same pattern of trying to control rate of spread of the virus by a series of staged measures.
There are mathematical models about this. My old college has been heavily involved with this, and there’s a very interesting publication they produced yesterday (16th March) on the modelling and assumptions and how that has been modified as new data has come through the system; not just new stats in the UK, but also from the rest of the world.
Steve Jones ，就读于伦敦帝国理工学院
“为什么英国处理新冠病毒的方法与其他国家这么不同? ”
其实这和许多欧洲国家没什么不同。只是在细节上有所不同，比如学校什么时候关闭，但本质上是同样的模式，试图通过一系列分阶段的措施控制病毒的传播速度。
关于这个问题有数学模型。 我以前的学院一直密切参与其中，昨天(3月16日)他们出版了一份非常有趣的出版物，内容是关于模型和假设，以及随着新数据的加入，模型是如何修改的，不仅仅是英国的新数据，还有来自世界其他地方的数据。
Jonathan Tan , was an avid reader of science magazines
Because somehow they are being advised by people who think they are more knowledgeable about the virus than this guy (and his team)
Who is this guy? He’s the WHO main guy who went into Wuhan, boots on the ground. And he’s a medical expert leading a team of medical experts.
Jonathan Tan 科学杂志的忠实读者
因为有些人认为他们比某个家伙(和他的团队)更了解这种病毒，所以不知怎么的，他们就听信了这些人的建议。
那某个家伙是谁？他是进入武汉的世界卫生组织的重要人物，脚踏实地。 他是一名医学专家，领导着一个医学专家团队。
Caroline Chen , studied at University of Nanchang
Because they do not feel COVID - 19 is terrible. A novel by Jane Austin, called pride and prejudice, is a perfect descr1iption of the state of government and the majority of the British people, or so it has always been. They left minor cases untreated and isolated, allowing the disease to infect more people in the hope of forming "crowd immunity".
Caroline Chen ，就读于南昌大学
因为他们不觉得新冠病毒有多可怕。简 · 奥斯汀的小说《傲慢与偏见》是对英国政府和大多数英国人的完美描述，至少一直如此。他们没有对少量病例的治疗和隔离，使这种疾病感染更多的人，希望形成“群体免疫”。
Keith Jackson , General Manager
It could be that governments in other countries are bowing to press, TV & other forms of media pressure & who don’t follow scientific specialists advice. Let’s face it no one really knows what to do in these circumstances so surely it’s better to follow & listen to the people who spend large parts of their working days preparing for these events than listen to the pressure from the press. Just imagine if the government followed the media they would then be saying why Arn’t the government following the scientists advice.1
Keith Jackson 、总经理
可能是其他国家的政府屈从于媒体、电视和其他形式的媒体压力，还有他们不听从科学专家的建议。让我们面对现实吧，没有人真正知道在这种情况下该怎么做，因此，追随和倾听那些在这件事花费大量工作时间做准备的人，肯定比听从媒体的压力要好。想象一下，如果政府听从媒体的建议，他们会说为什么政府不听从科学家的建议。
Chai Patel , lives in The United Kingdom
A newborn in London has tested positive for the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, just minutes after being born to a mother who was also infected with the virus, according to news reports.
Days prior to giving birth, the woman was admitted to a hospital for symptoms of pneumonia, finding out she had tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19 only after her baby was born at North Middlesex hospital in Enfield, in north London, The Guardian reported.
According to The Sun, the baby was being treated at the hospital, while the mother had been transferred to an infectious-diseases hospital.
It is not known when the child contracted the disease. "We can't say it happened while the baby was still in the womb," Dr William Schaffner, a professor of Preventive Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told Live Science. The baby could have also contracted the virus during, or immediately after, birth, Schaffner said.
Chai Patel ，生活在英国
据新闻报道，伦敦一名新生儿被检测出新冠病毒呈阳性，几分钟前，她的母亲也检测到感染了这种病毒。
据英国《卫报》报道，在分娩前几天，这名妇女因肺炎症状住进了医院，但在她的孩子在恩菲尔德的北米德尔塞克斯医院出生后，她才发现自己的新冠病毒检测呈阳性。
据《太阳报》报道，婴儿正在医院接受治疗，而母亲已被转移到传染病医院。
目前还不知道这个新生儿是在什么时候染上这种疾病的。“我们无法说这是在婴儿还在子宫里的时候就被传染的” 威廉·沙夫纳博士说，他是范德堡大学医学院预防医学和传染病的教授。 沙夫纳说，婴儿也可能在出生时或出生后立即感染了这种病毒。
