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

Some stuff on here is ridiculous scaremongering. Is there any actual evidence the death rate for an otherwise fit and healthy person is 9%? The estimates are showing its higher than seasonal flu but not 9% for most of you people with good lungs, just for people like me!

Maybe we can go into lockdown while Boris is on holiday abroad?
@janemaster - thank you, the only good reason I could see for going on lockdown at the moment!

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

Yes there is evidence for the 9%. It is the current outcome death rate. The evidence is called maths.

2627 deaths
25277 recovered

51 825 currently officially infected with no outcome yet. Out of these, 11568 (22%) are serious or critical, 40,257 are "mild" but over 70% of the mild cases are still hospitalised and so "mild" doesn't mean what many would think it means.

in ww2 when population was less than 48 million (compared to our current population 68) we had to have severe rationing & even than we had some imported food - without the enormous risks & casualties of the merchant navy ships we would have starved & probable lost the war. We cannot manage to support our population without imports. We need to export to pay for populations needs (indirectly via tax & directly whether by salary or profit) we are an island but we need people & goods to be able to transit in both directions. Information of where precisely to avoid is in the public domain (provided you use proper sources & advice) Even in China all the country is not on lockdown only the affected areas -but as pp have stated the effect on industry is severe & our country is already under sever stress. We import fuel for our power stations & transport - want to run out of that? We import a lot of our medicine drugs & other medical equipment, we have specialists in all types of fields coming in & leaving - think about this - unless you are of course just throwing grenade idea into the mix to get an argument/debate (!!!) going?

Because it's a stupid idea that would be practically impossible to implement.

@HasaDigaEebowai

No need to be sarcastic! The World Health Organisation have predicted 2% death rate, so take it up with them.

I thought many of the mild were hospitalized for isolation purposes, not because they otherwise (necessarily) required hospitalization.

Ffs

@HasaDigaEebowai no the evidence is statistics and as we all know statistics can be easily swayed.

The main reason it is seen as lower is the huge number of asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases. The numbers are those we know have coronavirus via a test.

The same site also has this

AGE
DEATH RATE*
80+ years old
14.8%
70-79 years old
8.0%
60-69 years old
3.6%
50-59 years old
1.3%
40-49 years old
0.4%
30-39 years old
0.2%
20-29 years old
0.2%
10-19 years old
0.2%
0-9 years old
no fatalities

Do you know what I want to know?

How many people die of seasonal flu in Wuhan each year?

It’s just (and it is worrying me yes) that I wonder if it’s probably my already here anyway. We only KNOW if people have it if we test. There could be 00000’s who already have it and are dismissing it as a nasty cold/flu.

So actually only because it is “new” are we worried and the death rate isn’t much higher?

Trying to placate myself as my family have asthma, me included, and elderly parents. A bad “virus” knocked my middle aged sister to the floor for 3 weeks last month so this one concerns me.

But hey, she had unusual symptoms so maybe it’s already done the rounds...

China is an odd one when it comes to flu stats

www.caixinglobal.com/2019-02-21/why-arent-people-in-china-dying-of-the-flu-101382286.html

who knows

Me, and other people in any related industries. Just Google some stats. It's blatantly obvious that loads of people here have no idea how much we're dependent on this traffic.

Doesnt the virus cause pneumonia?
which the elderly/young ill, get this time of year?

we may well have missed and will now find the virus in post mortems

Where are you getting your death rate of 9% from?

The 9% is calculated using cases with known clinical outcomes - i.e. people who have recovered or died.

27,906 concluded cases
25,279 recovered (91%)
2,627 died (9%)

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

It's not a final death rate, as there are still 51,825 active cases (and rising), and the actual death rate is estimated to be around 2%. www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Because it's FLU

It is quite likely (though certainly not yet proven) that their are milder strains of the virus that are going undetected. But that's a good thing - it means that the severity of the disease is being overestimated and that immunity will spread through the general population more quickly than is thought. It's what happened w swine flu (I know this isn't flu ) - months after the initial spread lots of people were found to be testing positive for antibodies who didnt think they'd had it.

Because it's FLU

It's not flu.

I am pretty sure it's already in the UK and circulating. How do you know you've not had it if you've had a bad cold/cough and a bit of a temperature? Could be anything, could be Covid-19. Unless you're tested, you'll never know.

Why, has something happened? Is it the zombie apocalypse?

Think everyone needs to calm down a bit. Have you tried having a nice cup of tea?

Because it's FLU
It certainly is NOT FLU.
That is like saying measles is just chicken pox.
It is a Novel coronavirus not influenza, we don't know enough about it yet and there is no vaccine.
Mumset is strangely divided on this with some panicking and prepping and others very blase.
It is important to be a little prepared. The locking down in China and Italy is unprecedented.

On average 600 people a year, or more than 10 a week, die from 'normal' flu. In 2008-9 13000 died in the UK.

Of course we should take sensible precautions, but we should not be crying wolf.

It isn't here in significant numbers yet. We have a pretty good flu surveillance system that would be picking up excess deaths if it were.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867172/Weekly_national_influenza_report_week_8_2020.pdf

China's reaction is enough for me to sit up and take notice - I can't see one of the world's leading economies voluntarily inflicting that sort of social and economic pain without good reason.

Having said that, the new virus does appear to be as transmissible as flu and just as easy to self-isolate (not very). I could see us locking down as a country for a few weeks, but like China we would need to go back to work, eventually. At best, we would delay it.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but given the practicalities, I think it's too early. A lot of the population won't be prepping, so won't cope with limited access to food/supplies for weeks.

If we did have a major outbreak here then, yes, it's something that can seriously be considered. In the meantime, we as individuals can prepare ourselves, healthy eating, stocking up on long lasting foods, medicines so we have a stash for lockdown, or having the personal option of reducing trips out for supplies