To think this statement by Matt Hancock is incorrect?

[greenback]

From the BBC today: Mr Hancock said he understood that "people are yearning to know how long this will all last", but that "the answer is entirely dependent on how much people follow the rules on social distancing"

Bur I don't see that there is a direct connection between these two things.

I can see that the lockdown will dampen the spread of the virus, enabling the NHS to cope. It will also mean that the peak (of the first wave of cases) will come sooner rather than later. But that still doesn't tell us how long the lockdown will last. After we've passed the peak, the length of the lockdown is still entirely dependent on an exit strategy that hasn't yet been fully defined, and which is in turn dependent on antibody tests that haven't yet been successfully developed, or on social tracing apps that haven't yet been proven to work. China may have their new infections under control for now (assuming their numbers can be believed) but they still have tighter measures than ours in place and so are a very long way from getting back to normal.

Disclaimer: I didn't vote for this government, but generally think they're doing a good job in difficult circumstances. I think Matt Hancock comes across as genuine and honest. So I'm not making a political point - I just don't think this one statement is correct. Am I missing something?

On Sweden they daily report home spate capacity there is in IC and ventilators ie 'don't panic' On this country there is also spare capacity, but that is not reported because of the scaremongering media and the fear that the NHS must not look as if it is anything other than overwhelmed -which creates even more panic.

On Sweden they daily report home spate capacity there is in IC and ventilators ie 'don't panic'

Really? Are you in Sweden? I'm pretty astonished that we know so little about current NHS capacity, but you've correctly identified it as a sacred totem.

The real issue with testing is that PHE has been utterly intransigent in insisting all testing be centralised through its labs. Heads should roll there after this.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/31/public-health-england-ignored-offers-testing-help-amid-mounting/

The real issue with testing is that PHE has been utterly intransigent in insisting all testing be centralised through its labs

They wanted testing done through a new central facility for a reason... to ensure quality. Their strategy does now include a "pillar" for testing by external labs too, but they all need to be individually checked and approved, so it's not a magic bullet and takes time to ramp up.

I don’t believe that for one moment. PHE is one of the most bureaucratic organisations I’ve ever worked with. It’s nothing to do with quality and everything to do with control. They’ve fucked up big time.

PHE is one of the most bureaucratic organisations I’ve ever worked with

I don't doubt it. But bureaucratic organisations don't become agile overnight just because there's a crisis. No doubt they're grappling with home working and high levels of staff sickness at the same time.

It’s nothing to do with quality and everything to do with control

You can't have quality without control. It's crucial that the tests are accurate and no matter who is doing the testing, PHE have responsibility for that.

Oh I thought they reported over 2000 free ventilators in the uk yesterday?

The answer is that no one currently knows the answer.
There are those who believe the lockdown will obliterate the cases eventually, the peak will be Sunday, we will all be on our jolly way come June and this whole ordeal will be the stuff of Facebook memories where we'll turn to our nearest and dearest and say "ooh remember that, what a bloody palaver that was"

Then there are those who strongly believe that this lockdown is pointless as we are just delaying a second, bigger, more deadly wave of infections come October/November at a time when the NHS will be truly screwed. Let's not forget,it's now summer so usually the usual range of flu/pneumonia/bronchitis cases are fewer and people are generally more "well" than at other times. Yet the NHS is already struggling, Watford ran out of Oxygen last week.

I think the lockdown worked when we were going on the assumption, caused by China, that "only" the over 60s and those with underlying health issues were at major risk and everyone else feels like they've been on the piss for a fortnight and have a hangover as a result. We now know this was pure bullshit, like most of what has been told to us and everywhere else by post China. We have indeed seen younger victims who don't meet the original criteria for critical effects.

Who knows. We are literally all learning at the same time, I don't even think we can go by Italy now as I think it's mutated and changes everytime it hits a new country.

Will we be out of lockdown soon? No, probably not and it's not really to do with people moronically going to the seaside, if that was the case they should have banned Cheltenham and Crufts, and holidays during half term, done testing at airports etc. It's more to do with the chronic under investment in the NHS, but the Tories won't ever admit that as they would be annihilated after this is over.

I agree the NHS has been chronically underfunded, though obviously by previous Governments rather than by this one, which is just a few weeks old. But I don't think any health system has enough spare capacity in it to cope with a crisis like this without a massive injection of good will, effort and cash. Our injection will just need to be bigger than some others.

It will also mean that the peak (of the first wave of cases) will come sooner rather than later.

Well, you've got that wrong for a start. The whole "flatten curve" thing pushes the peak out later, not sooner.

What Twat Hancock meant was that the more we go out & mingle the more the virus will spread. This thing didn't happen by accident it was meant to happen, & not enough people have been taken out by it just yet. Why else are they continuing to allow us to go out several times a day? Doris (unless he's recently died), will make a full recovery, in fact he's probably hiding out somewhere having a jolly good laugh about the whole thing.

The Government blaming Doris to deflect their own failings, and the fact some selfish, idiotic people are deliberately and knowingly ignoring advice can both be true.

Both result in the only outcome being that, the more people do what they are supposed to, the less time it will take to get through this.

Completely agree with MonkeyNuts18. "I think it’s probably political manoeuvring. They have no exit strategy. If they have to prolong the lockdown then it will be useful to be able to blame us." So much this.

I don't think this has been handled well at all. We should have started social distancing sooner, we'd have saved lives in doing so. I think Boris has Cummings whispering in his ear which resulted in the grossly misnamed 'herd immunity' policy he first started spouting before he realised how bad the UK's figures would look compared to our counterparts.

In short - yes, I agree OP. We don't know how long this will last, and honestly people need to come to terms with that uncertainty. The data will (eventually) tell us when we can come out of lockdown. And when lockdown does end, we won't all just be allowed back out to carry on as usual. The virus will still be around and it'll still be dangerous.

greenback I agree with all your points. Yes, I am indeed fortunate to be an armchair critic at this time. However, I find the idea of asymptomatic or symptomatic elderly patients going back into care homes- into the very environment that has been propagandised as a sacred space, shielding the population most vulnerable to severe disease - ghastly.

I think PHE needs to be much more open and transparent in the future. According to reports coming out one of the issues around testing capacity is that it was expected the next epidemic would be a flu virus where testing is less helpful. So they planned for what they expected rather than a range of options.
I suspect politics are irrelevant to the response, it would be the same advisors giving the same advice to any U.K. government.
I assume lockdown is partly intended to push cases away from the flu season to reduce the load on the NHS and into better weather when the virus is expected to spread less well.

The whole "flatten curve" thing pushes the peak out later, not sooner.

No oldwhyno, now that the spread has been slowed by social distancing the peak (of the first wave) will happen very soon, within the next week to 10 days. But it isn't a symmetrical curve - there is a long tail after the peak. Nobody knows how long it will be, and if the lockdown is ended before alternative control measures are introduced the infection rate will start to rise again, bringing a second wave.

OP - you're not wrong, he was talking rubbish. Politicians often say what they think people want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

We need "lockdown" to be just good enough to allow the NHS to cope. If we do "better" than absolutely necessary with lockdown, then this thing goes on longer than necessary.

Bleak, but true.

This will not go away. We need people to stay at home. Covid-19 will take the lives of many older people who were going to die anyway within the next few months.
My brother died in December, I am so relieved that he went when we could give him a send off and be with him when he died

No a lockdown that is just sufficient to let the NHS cope would be extremely difficult to arrange and would not fix things quicker ( vaccine would come first by many years ) , but would leave you more likely to end up in complete lockdown again because of the difficulty in controlling infection rates. Like balancing on a wobble board with your eye shut . And would leave you with many more dead children and young people than necessary

Better off taking the time to get this throughly under control ( a week or so more than the "just coping" time) and then aim to keep the rate to near zero through border quarentine, testing contact tracing isolation and local lockdown when ( not if) things start going wrong

He's right though. If people carry on flouting the rules and keep spreading the thing, then it will take longer to bring under control.

No, the quickest way to bring it under control would have been the most barbaric. Let it surge through the population so we all get immunity quickly. That strategy was clearly and obviously morally unacceptable, hence the lockdown.

Arguably the lockdown extends the amount of time COVID 19 is a problem but saves more lives because the NHS can cope and treatment can be improved even if a vaccine will take a while.

No, the quickest way to bring it under control would have been the most barbaric. Let it surge through the population so we all get immunity quickly. That strategy was clearly and obviously morally unacceptable, hence the lockdown.
Arguably the lockdown extends the amount of time COVID 19 is a problem but saves more lives because the NHS can cope and treatment can be improved even if a vaccine will take a while.

This is also my understanding of the situation. The message I have seen on social media: "The more we comply with social distancing, the sooner the pandemic will be over" might be what people would like to believe (and possibly what the government would like them to believe), but it doesn't make it true.

If you reduce the rate of infection then this increases the total time taken for the same number of people to eventually become infected.

But if you can control infection rates to a very low level with minimal impact on everyday life until there is an vaccine, then you don't need huge death rates, you don't need most of the population infected and you will minimise the economic impact compared to both other approaches

That is the approach China took. Austria are now also doing this

migetbabe

The situation in China is very unclear as their death rates are so out of line with nearly every other country. Also the impact on people’s lives has been huge.

But if you can control infection rates to a very low level with minimal impact on everyday life until there is an vaccine .... That is the approach China took

No, there is no vaccine. It could be a year before there is a vaccine manufactured at the levels needed, and that assumes one or more of the current vaccine trials is successful.

China's lockdown is still tighter than ours. They are only experimenting with relaxing it and are a long way from getting back to normal.