AIBU to say that we are all supposed to catch this virus for herd immunity?

[Roxymoomoo]

So if you listen to what the Gov guys says every day.... They say slow the spread...not stop the spread.
Gov figures on death rates are based on 60-80% of the population catching it. (1% of the known cases, known cases approx rep 10% of all cases)

So I'm quite shocked when I read the neurotic things written on some posts people clearly are deluded

Am I being unreasonable to expect people to catch the virus?
( in a slow and organised way so as to allow for proper NHS treatment)

Yes- You are I never expect to catch this virus....
No... I fully expect to catch this virus and contribute to herd immunity

I strongly suspect that the plan is still herd immunity. I just think no government wants to admit this, so they are pretending otherwise. I don’t think there is anything else for it really.

Well the messages seem to be ever changing and confusing. If the majority of us in the healthy range 'need' to catch it at some point, when is that point going to be?

The 'shielded', people I know with CF and in receipt if a transplant obviously never want to get it and presumably need to shield until there is a vaccine/cure.

I don’t want to catch it by the way, but they do say most people are asymptomatic so maybe I already had it. Who knows anymore?

Realistically short of locking people inside their homes and having noone deliver anything to the house including food there's nothing the government can do to guarantee that noone will get it until a vaccine is developed. Of course most people will get it and most people will not be seriously ill and will make a full recovery.

i wish a reporter would ask this at the daily conference.... I get the feeling they are not allowed to.

Over time most people will have it and I'm fine with that. However, I would rather catch it in a few months time when we are past the peak than have it now when we are about to have a huge shortage of hospital beds etc.

That said, I haven't felt the need to (quote) "dettol the living daylights" out of the post and parcels, or quarantine my food delivery in the garage for 3 days because I probably will catch it eventually and IMO that's not a sustainable or healthy way to live.

The important bit - as they have said all along - is that we don't all get it at the same time.

And yeah not letting the vulnerable ever catch it until the vaccine comes along if we can manage it.

It's been obvious from the very beginning that this is the UK government's approach. Slow the virus down to protect the NHS. It's likely to be around forever now, like colds and seasonal flu. Or maybe it will fade away after several years or decades. Nobody really knows. But whatever happens, if the NHS is overwhelmed, more people will die overall.

The world is waiting to see what happens in China as restrictions are relaxed. There is likely to be a second wave. Will it be as bad as the first? Will people who had Covid catch it a second time? And if so, will they be as ill? Nobody knows.

Whose approach will turn out to be better? Singapore and Taiwan, who managed to stop the epidemic? Or Europe, who are trying to slow it down? Nobody knows.

The original cunning plan was for most of us to get it for herd immunity. "Take it on the Chin".
This was announced when the lacklustre attempts to "contain" it were found to have failed.
Cue most of the rest of the world and the WHO saying "wtf???!?" And uproar even from those who would normally be counted on to support the government.
So they u-turned and decided they would put in drastic measures to slow the spread after all.
First they said it WASN'T a U-turn and denied that "herd immunity" was ever a thing. Then they admitted that it had been a thing, but they changed their mind following "new modelling data".
Ie even a small percentage of 66million is still a massive number, and way way beyond what any health service could cope with. (Who'd have thought it?)

So now we are where we are. And if the death rate is huge, this is no way the fault of how the government handled the outbreaks in the early days when we still had a fighting chance. It is entirely the fault of Doris who went shopping twice in a week and Bob who drove to a moor to walk.

Its about damage limitation now. Slow it down as much as you can through social distancing (which has horrendous implications for some), destroy the economy, spend billions to keep society ticking over at a basic level and prevent complete catastrophe.... This may, if we are very very very lucky, allow the NHS to come close to sort of coping with the numbers we will see.

So try your best not to catch it or spread it in the meantime. 🤞

The plan - such as it is - is

a. to stop the NHS being overwhelmed in the next few weeks
b. work on a vaccine - with no expectation that it will be ready for at least 12-18 months
c. gradually expose younger fitter people while continuing to shield those most likely to die/take up an ICU bed for a long time
d. keep the economy going so that we actually have a health service going forward.
e. continue to study the virus and best practice on treatment.

For the vast majority of people this is an unpleasant but not life threatening illness.

If anyone else can think of a better approach I am sure the government is open to suggestions.

I don’t think it is that clear. Low viral load and the likely hood is you don’t get very sick, a mild cold and you get immunity, so if they can manage social distancing, then ultimately people who get it won’t be Very ill other than in those who are shielded, giving the population enough immunity to stop the virus spreading. High viral load and you’re likely to be very ill (as in you take a lot of the virus in)

However on the other hand, the virus is now spreading much less due to lock down, as such, when we get below infecting one other person it dies out. They think it’s currently 0.6 but hard to validate as its based on people’s submission of their interactions and people aren’t always accurate.

Both stop the virus spreading.

The third stream is clearly either treat and/or vaccinate.

Lastly it is also starting to be possible that the virus is mutating as it spreads, into something much less malignant, more along the common cold path way, as it moves through the human population.

So I’m not sure there is a clear plan, more this is evolving quickly and it’s still too new for them to be sure of any of the findings, and there is no clear exit plan or long term strategy at this stage.

I can’t think what else we are meant to do without a vaccine? We can’t stay in forever

Slow it down while a vaccine is worked on so that it can be contained. It's not a conspiracy or a ploy of any world wide health department. It's got nothing to do with herd immunity. Try not to catch it because it is deadly no matter your age or health.

Given how many people are horribly ill or dying of it despite no underlying conditions and being in good health I think it's clear herd immunity by actually getting the virus is far from sensible.

True herd immunity comes through vaccination. Let's hope that happens quicker.

Great minds think alike Lady Minerva

I don’t think the figures are clear enough to know yet, without an antibody test.

If lots of people have it mildly already then herd immunity might work.

On the other hand if only 1-2% of the population have it in the next month, then it’s too much to reach herd immunity- it could take dozens of “waves” of infection over years.

Personally I think contact tracing may be introduced and social distancing measures may have to be switched on and off over the next year or two until a vaccine can increase the rates of immunity.

Yeah I wondered this because surely we have to be able to come out eventually? I presume the guidance now is to make sure hospitals can cope. But won't there be a big wave when everyone comes out again?

The press aren’t going to ask the question because the most important thing at the moment is to get someone to actually answer a question on testing.

That’s more important than holding the government to account on the u-turn over herd immunity. Obviously that does give the advantage of allowing us to forget that the complete cock up of a herd immunity plan ever existed in the first place.

@tegucigalpa13. Fantastic clear post, thats my understanding of the situation too. I do wonder if those of us that are shielded will be advised to stay home for many more months than the initial 12 weeks, whilst a vaccine is developed.

Personally I think contact tracing may be introduced and social distancing measures may have to be switched on and off over the next year or two until a vaccine can increase the rates of immunity.

Agree. Earlier this week, the government mentioned launching a mobile app to help with contact tracing - cue loads of Mumsnetters crying, "Big Brother! Nooooooo!" But this was essentially one of the tools that China used to get it under control (with a personal QR code scanned everywhere you go) and I think it's our best chance at keeping this at a manageable level once the initial lockdown is over.

As an aside, if the government really wanted to trace your movements for other purposes, they could already easily do so by knowing the location of your phone, so not sure why people are so up in arms about it!

Slow it down while a vaccine is worked on so that it can be contained. It's not a conspiracy or a ploy of any world wide health department. It's got nothing to do with herd immunity. Try not to catch it because it is deadly no matter your age or health.

I'd say rather that it can be deadly regardless of your health or age. The evidence is still that it's very much not so for the majority of healthy young people.

My sister has asthma and has had it, and had a 'nasty few days' - but now mostly recovered just a week later. Prince Charles looks fine after having it. Etc etc etc.

Youth and health aren't a guarantee, but the likelihood is still an illness manageable at home by the vast majority of those who contract it.

Personally I think contact tracing may be introduced and social distancing measures may have to be switched on and off over the next year or two until a vaccine can increase the rates of immunity.

This is what I think. Plus travel bans/quarantine

Can you become immune to any coronavirus? If so, why do we catch seasonal colds or vaccinate for the flu?

We vaccinate against the flu because the jab is better than getting really ill with actual flu in most cases.

I would like to think they are holding out for vaccination, although realistically I’m not sure the economy can wait that long. There’s so much they don't know about this virus, including if immunity lasts. It may be mild in most but they don’t know the long term effects and it’s been suggested it can cause lasting lung damage. I was reading this morning that they think it attacks red blood cells, which is why people with hypertension don’t fare so well and they had some success with anti malaria tablets if taken very early. So its not even really an ‘illness of the lungs‘ ? Hoping someone with actual medical and scientific knowledge might be able to explain better !