To wonder why the UK hasn't gone into lockdown yet?

[UnderReview]

Why doesn't the UK shut down now? Prevention better than (no) cure?

There's a doctor on Twitter (Dr Emma Hodcroft) who posted this...

Why are scientists alarmed when the first #COVID19 cases we hear of in a country are deaths? I thought it worth clarifying.

It's not because we worry the virus is "bad", "getting worse" or "changing". It's because #SARSCoV2 doesn't seem to lead to death very quickly
It seems like #SARSCoV2 infection takes about 3-4 weeks to overwhelm someone & lead to death - if it does, which for many it does not.

But this then implies that when we see deaths, those people have had the virus for weeks beforehand

And if no cases or only very few, well-tracable cases were detected during those weeks, #SARSCoV2 was circulating undetected.

And then only detected in some people who got ill enough to die. We know that's only a small fraction of the population

We don't know the answer to these questions exactly, but we don't need to in order to appreciate that seeing deaths first, or at time of diagnosis, is concerning to scientists & public health.

It's a sign that #SARSCoV2 is circulating more widely than we thought

This then marks a change in strategy, as we've seen in Italy, where it's very hard to retrace & take action, sometimes impossible. These efforts are still worthwhile, but harder than when detect #COVID19 cases earlier in the chain

In Italy there is panic. (I have it from the horse's mouth!) I think it's particularly because some people caught the virus in a bar from strangers. So it's like the common cold, in that one sneeze can spray random people in an enclosed space. On the plus side, I read that because it is so easily spread, the virus is actually weaker than some others.

Firstly that's totally impractical & would have huge financial implications. Secondly there are so many anxious panicked people that threads like this stoke. Please reign it in unless you're the Chief Medical Officer.

It's slightly worse than flu, we think, but it may not be if there are lots of people with mild/no symptoms that are currently not being detected.

It's slightly more dangerous if you have a pre-existing lung condition but then, so is flu.

It is most dangerous if you are over 80 and have a pre-existing heart condition or other health problems (as many of the over 80s do, of course).

Please

Why doesn't the UK shut down now?

Simply because it would kill more people than the virus.

In Italy there is panic.

That's such a blanket statement that it really doesn't make sense. Yes, some people always panic but it's not like the whole country is running around panicking! I am in Northern Italy and I have the week off work (just as well as I have all the kids at home as schools are shut). BUT I went to the bar for a coffee (no panic), did the shopping (no panic but obviously some people were stocking up). Most people are absolutely not panicking. Most people are not even living in areas which are affected in any way whatsoever.

@RainydaysandMondaysalways

Probably more contagious, probably higher death rate (using estimates based on current data), concerns that it could overwhelm healthcare services, particularly in poorer countries, would also be widespread consequences for global economy. Unlike flu there is no vaccine or immunity, so percentage of the population who get it could possibly be much higher than number of people with flu if/when it became a pandemic.

Op are you talkjgn about a different virus? You keep mentioning SARSCoV2

It is not "slightly worse than flu" . Both the replication rate and the percentage of serious/critical and dead are much higher than seasonal flu.

Er because it would be a ridiculous overreaction?

SARSCoV2 is the formal name of the virus

Based on the information available we (family) have taken steps to prepare for a local outbreak and shortages of goods in the shops as a result. We don't live int he UK, but in a small northern European city where a number of citizens commonly travel back and forth to SE Asia. In addition it is skiing season and a number of citizens head to Northern Italy. We feel there is a very real risk of disruption to food supplies and have purchased some extra longlife and canned goods. I have never before prepped for anything in my life (forties).

It’s not really deadly enough to warrant a nationwide lock down. More people would die from food and medicine shortages from a months long kick down than from the virus escaping into the general population surely?

'lockdown'...

You really fancy having no food and a very rapidly tanking economy?

It absolutely staggers me that people have this little idea about how dependent we are as a country on cross border traffic.

As for the even more ridiculous comment about 'oh we can't do that because the left will complain'... I have no words. That's a serious degree of stupid right there.

I think the current hope is to slow its spread until summer hits, and hope the sunlight kills off much of the virus floating about after someone has coughed or sneezed (although I dont know how effective UV light is given this isnt justice northern hemisphere thing), or someone can develop a vaccine and nass produce it.

Does it have a higher death rate than flu? I'm not sure the numbers are well enough known for that to be ascertained yet.

World lockdown would be good for carbon emission reduction. I'm not sure what else it would achieve.

DH has various medical conditions which would put him in a higher risk group for complications so we've done some stocking up (in a non-panicked rational way) in case we need to self-isolate. And we're being more scrupulous about hand washing when we've been out. Taking personal responsibility as far as we can seems the proportionate response at this point

Given the fact that the virus appears to be able to survive for at least 2 weeks if not longer on surfaces which have been exposed to body fluids from an invected person, all thses nice things mail ordered from infected areas in infected counttries are winging their way here if not already opened and worn, played with, fondled, used.....
TS has already hit TF

We can't put the country in lockdown because there will be an uproar at the 'racism' of it by the left.

Where's the crying with laughter emoji when you need it? I mean never mind the massive economic impacts. Never mind that trying to lockdown an entire country would cause more problems and deaths than any virus. Never mind the sheer logistics of it and the fact that it wouldn't work. Lets just blame the left for trying not to be racist, that's what's really at the root of the world's problems.

The thing is @HasaDigaEebowai either you quote percentages or you use words like "slightly" or "much" which are open to interpretation. I think "slightly" is fine. It's not exactly Ebola.

UnderReview when you say lockdown, do you mean closing the borders? If so, to whom? Everyone? That would include an awful lot of families who have gone away for half term, it would include people who bring food, medicine and goods from overseas.

How long would the lockdown go on for? This is likely to circulate around the globe for months at a minimum. It may become endemic (and thus always be around).

Life is complicated - we are so dependent on other countries for medicine, trade and our economy. If we shut that down, then people will die.

No border is impervious anyway and the WHO say that shutting borders is ineffective.

We are long past containment. It's about mitigation and slowing the virus down now. People need to stay at home if they aren't well. They need to wash their hands regularly and use gel if they can't get to a sink when out and about. They need to stop coughing and sneezing into the air or their hands. Use a tissue, or the crook of your arm.

Most of our food comes from abroad. How would we get it into the country?

Seasonal flu has a death rate of 0.02%. This has a current death rate of 9% but since its suspected that there are many thousands of cases which are not yet included in the official numbers the experts predict that the death rate is likely to be around 2%. It has a tremendously high replication rate (rate of spread) of around r3. 22% of all infection cases are serious or critical requiring hospitalisation. That would overwhelm the NHS

But I also don't think we should be going into lockdown yet. If we start to identify Italy levels of infection (fairly likely eventually given the number of UK citizens in Italy over half term) then its important to lockdown areas to try to contain the spread.

HulksPurplePanties, I think that's just the sort of thing Boris would say!😆

Where are you getting your death rate of 9% from? The only 9% I've seen is for the over 80s with additional health conditions. It's down to about 0.4% if you are healthy and in your 20s and not much higher than that for the rest of us.

I feel like the uk isn’t doing enough either. It would be extremely difficult to impose a lockdown but I think it will have to get a lot worse before uk government takes some stringent measures.

That simply isn't true porcupineinwaiting 9% is the current death rate based on cases with outcomes. Its gone down a lot as new cases have been identified, it was around 24% at one stage a couple of weeks ago. The experts predict is will settle at circa 2%.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus