People are becoming far too relaxed.

[PecorinoPear]

I have been going to the supermarket once a week for food and petrol since this began.

I have noticed that people are becoming too relaxed. Whole families shopping together, no social distancing because they are incorrectly wearing a mask. Children wearing masks, if parents are so worried why don't they leave them at home?

Morrisons aren't bothering with a queue anymore, so there is no limit to how many people are in the store.

[Kcnana]

Quite rightly too. For the majority of people, the chance of this virus causing severe illness is extremely low. Perceived risk is starting to fall in line with actual risk.

We can't stay living under these restrictions forever. Those who can, simply have to move forward.

[PowerslidePanda]

Quite rightly too. For the majority of people, the chance of this virus causing severe illness is extremely low

But when cases start increasing exponentially (i.e. out of control) as a result of their actions, it's not just those people who will be affected, is it?

This isn't a "sacrifice the economy!" thread. It's about people failing to take basic precautions which would cause them no hardship, yet could be the difference between keeping the virus under control or not.

[SockYarn]

But when cases start increasing exponentially

If. If not when.

But let's all look on the gloomy side, yeah?

[bigchris]

They havent i creased massively in any other country

Yes there have been some increases but only one country has reintroduced small bits of lockdown I think

Given the Tories love of the economy I doubt we'd go into lockdown again

If there is a huge rise that's what the now empty nightingale hospitals are for

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

Cases will not increase exponentially. That is absolutely for definite. Every single piece of data available on covid has shown that the imperial model, which predicted exponential growth, is completely and totally wrong - which is understandable as it was based on no data.

[NiknicK]

Well I don’t know about everyone else but this doesn’t describe me. I haven’t taken my dc shopping once since lockdown. I have kept my distance from people, my dc aren’t going back to school next week and we haven’t been to parks or beaches.

[echt]

Cases will not increase exponentially. That is absolutely for definite. Every single piece of data available on covid has shown that the imperial model, which predicted exponential growth, is completely and totally wrong - which is understandable as it was based on no data

Do explain.

[OneJump]

Where is the staff coming from for the Nightingales then?

[SunbathingDragon]

Cases will not increase exponentially. That is absolutely for definite.

Of course they will.

[ListeningQuietly]

People are being entirely reasonable.
2m was a made up number with no scientific basis.
People know how few cases there are in each area
and what the risks of them both catching it, getting ill or passing it on are.
hint: very very low for anybody under 40

[Redolent]

They can crack on as far as I’m concerned. Rather they risk being bedridden and fatigued for two months than me. And they’ll still count as a mild case.

[MonkeyToesOfDoom]

what the risks of...... passing it on

Here's a thought for you.
Every single person that's now dead was given this virus by someone else. Every single mum, dad, brother, aunt, grandma, child that is buried right now was given this virus by someone.
So when you say the chances of passing it on are very very low, guess what?
That's bullshit.

60k dead people had it passed to them one way or another. That's how viruses work.

UK currently has the highest rate of excess deaths IN THE WORLD. And everyone of them caught the virus from.someone else.

Chance of passing it on Very very low?
Bullshit

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265885480144470023.html

[JoeExoticsEyebrowRing]

Cases will not rise exponentially anyway mow will they, because as more people in the population have had it, the transmission will slow and not everyone will pass it on?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

No, they won't @SunbathingDragon. People don't seem to understand what a model is - it's not a prediction of the future it's a best guess based on very incomplete data.

This article explains it more: theconversation.com/lack-of-data-makes-predicting-covid-19s-spread-difficult-but-models-are-still-vital-135797

The imperial model had various different assumptions - about the R value of covid, about the infection to fatality ratio etc, all of which were reasonable guesses, none of which have turned out to be accurate. Sweden has shown that you can allow people to socialise, go to pubs and shops etc without any exponential increase in deaths.

It's not surprising at all the imperial model was inaccurate - it would have been strange if it was. It had to take into account a worst case scenario - if covid is very infectious and has a high fatality rate, what then? In actual fact covid is infectious but the fatality rate, especially for under 60s is very very low. So the disease may spread quickly but it won't lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths - it's just not that dangerous.

[JoeExoticsEyebrowRing]

Yeah I don't see how anyone can say the chance of it being passed on is low! The chance of the average person becoming very ill with it is low and the chance of the average person dying with it are very very low, but the chance of passing it on if you are infectious is high.

[CoronaMoaner]

I went to Lidl this week and whilst it wasn’t too busy, I agree that whole families shopping together is super annoying.
I went at 8pm and it closes at 9. The number of families with kids shopping. And more annoyingly letting their kids get those small trollies and then not supervising them at all.
No queuing system in place. And ended up with 2 queues alongside each other because so many people wanted to pay in cash and only one till was enabled for this.
Was not a pleasant experience.

[ListeningQuietly]

but the chance of passing it on if you are infectious is high.
Not according to the random testing data in Spain and Italy which shows less than 10% have been infected

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

It's also worth saying that the government used the Imperial model but that's not the only model out there, and other models say completely different things. That's because, without accurate data, lots of things can be true, so a model is just putting together a few different guesses.

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that relaxing measures leads to an exponential increase in deaths. It simply hasn't happened. So the model made a guess that it would happen and it hasn't, therefore the model (understandably) is wrong.

theconversation.com/coronavirus-weve-had-imperial-oxford-and-many-more-models-but-none-can-have-all-the-answers-135137

[Kcnana]

People seem intent in dragging the worst of this out for as long as possible. The hysteria surrounding this virus seems more damaging than the virus itself!

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

There is also evidence that covid was spreading in Europe from November and that it was in the UK in December. Therefore, it was spreading totally uncontrolled for nearly three months before lockdown. That resulted in a high number of infections and therefore a high number of deaths (a virus with a low death rate will lead to a high number of deaths if a lot of people are infected - it's just a matter of numbers) but no exponential growth, no hundreds of thousands.

It really bothers me the way people have been so bamboozled and how the discussion of the actual progress of the illness (as opposed to the worst case scenario situations, which are now out of date and inaccurate) seems to have stalled. I suspect that's because no government wants to admit they locked down and destroyed the world economy unnecessarily.

[PowerslidePanda]

@SockYarn

But when cases start increasing exponentially

If. If not when.

But let's all look on the gloomy side, yeah?

If. If not when.

Ok - if. If the majority of people follow social distancing, cases may not increase. If the majority of people behave like those described in the OP, there's a good chance they will. Happy now?

Also, I love how everyone has jumped on that specific part of what I said - conveniently ignoring the point that there's no good reason not to follow the rules in the OP's example...

[EnlightenedOwl]

Let's just get back to normal. While we've got a chance of salvaging something.

[scaevola]

What proportion of the population are in the 'flu jab vulnerable' group?

ie The ones who may well survive (though the deathrate is higher than for the 'majority') but be exceedingly unwell for weeks.

Because if they start catching it, because their shopping trips become unsafe, then we couid be back to square one.

This disease in a population which is not social distancing, R0 of over 2. Exponential growth was occurring before distancing was decreed. As most optimistic estimate is that 17% of the population has been exposed (first representative sampling after antibody test approved) there's still ample potential for this to go wrong

[bigchris]

Where is the staff coming from for the Nightingales then?

No clue, I'm not a NHS manager, shall we dismantle them now then?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

Exponential growth was not happening before distancing was 'decreed.' Exponential growth (which was in relation to deaths, not infections btw) has never happened, anywhere in the world. Not a single example of it, nowhere even close to it.

Leo Varadkar in Ireland predicted 15,000 deaths by the end of March, even with lockdown. That was based on the Imperial model. To date, two months later, the total number of deaths in Ireland is 1631. Strangely enough, he never commented on that 15,000 prediction again.