To think that we won't have a total lockdown because the Govt needs people to keep catching C-19

[KittyRainbow]

I keep seeing people desperate for there to be a full lock down. With the army on the streets and people being arrested for being more than 50m from their homes and I wonder if I'm missing something?

Everything I've heard from the Govt so far indicates that they are not trying to stop the virus, but rather limit the number of people who have it at the same time. So they actually need people to be out in limited numbers to continue the spread in a managed fashion.

In fact I'm getting the impression now that they are surprised at how well people are following the rules. And that the police are, in some cases, being over zealous in their reaction to people out and about. Which makes me think they actually expected more people to bend the rules and spread the virus a little more freely.

So I don't think they will introduce more or tighter measures to keep people indoors as it would actually be counted productive and increase the risk of a massive spike in cases when the current rules are relaxed.

I think my they have been clear that we all need to catch it, but we need to catch it slowly

With lockdown, I think it will stay the same unless there is a massive increase in deaths but tbh by that point it would be too late but it would look like they were doing soemthing

I think it’s clear that they don’t have a clue what they are doing but are very good at distracting public attention from their misdoings.
The idea that Everyone needs To get us the stupid argument I’ve heard!

I suspect a law of diminishing returns applies to lockdown anyway.
Moving from business as usual to the lockdown we currently have will have drastically reduced transmission, but doubling the severity of lockdown further will not reduce transmission by half.

It would be impossible to literally lock the whole population in their houses, as we still need to eat!
Not to mention that the army enforcers are themselves also capable of catching and transmitting the virus.

And what pumpkinpie1 said.

980 people in Britain died yesterday from this virus.

We need a full and proper lockdown. Herd immunity is only effective with vaccines.

The numbers of people dying currently- tragically sad though it is - is the result of the pre lockdown period. We do not know yet what the impact of the last 2-3 weeks has been, but I would expect a gradual decline in the curve.

In order not to totally flatten the economy once the initial peak has been reduced, it would make sense to keep the most vulnerable at home - so over 70s and those with at risk conditions- but gradually ease of restrictions so that NHS keeps getting cases but not at a rate which overwhelms the capacity or the personnel.

980 people in Britain died yesterday from this virus.

980 people died with the virus. There is currently no data on how many have died of the virus.

I think it's an important distinction.

Good point milk and because of how we track the figures - versus say Germany with allegedly lower death rates - we don't how how many of those people would have died due to other conditions over the next 12 months. Of course every untimely death is sad - hence why elderly or at risk must stay at home - but it's hard to get an accurate picture of what the death rate is versus normal, and also how many people will die of other conditions i.e. untreated cancer as no screenings if the current situation continues.

980 people in Britain died yesterday from this virus.

We need a full and proper lockdown. Herd immunity is only effective with vaccines.

Until when though? It cannot go on forever, people will have to be let out of lockdown eventually, we can't wait 1-1.5 years at home until there is a vaccine (assuming there ever is one?)

I think this is true and people not following the rules are volunteering their family and friends to get it at the most dangerous point.

Why would they 'need' people to catch it when full recovery rates are mysteriously low and there's little evidence having had it gives you any immunity?!

Which makes me think they actually expected more people to bend the rules and spread the virus a little more freely.

They did, the SAGE papers in March were pretty open about this.

I think it’s possible, yes, and have thought that myself.

While every death is a tragedy, the number of deaths is not the relevant figure in terms of this being over. The number of new cases it’s what’s important and that’s been steady (ie not rising) for 8/9 days now.

Why would they 'need' people to catch it when full recovery rates are mysteriously low and there's little evidence having had it gives you any immunity?!

Because what else can they do? The government decided stupidly not to go down the route of testing, we can’t stay locked in our homes for ever. There is no vaccine, we aren’t tracing people. So what are the options? How long can people stay home for?
How can you stop yourself getting it?
There is no plan. The government don’t really know what to do. They are hoping that most of us will be ok.

980 people, who were ill enough to be admitted to hospital and get tested, died from/with cv yesterday.

They are NOT including people who have died at home from cv who have not been tested therefore officially diagnosed.

They are NOT including elderly folk who have died in nursing or care homes from cv who have not been tested therefore officially diagnosed.

We will not know for a while what the impact of cv on total deaths on the UK is for some time. I suspect that as only those officially diagnosed are being counted that the death rate is in fact much, much higher.

The number of new cases it’s what’s important and that’s been steady (ie not rising) for 8/9 days now.

That’s only works if we are testing the same amount of people, the same cohort of people and the same amount of test are successful and correct.

I think they've made that very clear from the beginning. Which is why we're at where we're at now.

They're 'balancing', not trying to get rid of it entirely (too late now, but could have been done initially).

I don't know if we will be able to control the waves going forward because people will complain about 'things changing all the time' & 'not realising that the rules had changed'. I think it would be chaos, so I think we need to make the most of the lockdown we have to reduce the numbers of those infected as far as possible

How long can I stay at home for?! @freddiefox

Not as long as I'll stay dead for if I'm in the significant unlucky minority (or perhaps even the majority long term if repeated flare-ups turn out to be worse).

The number of new cases it’s what’s important and that’s been steady (ie not rising) for 8/9 days now.

Yes & no

Yes it's the most important number, but it's completely inaccurate to report as they are. That's only a part of the answer and totally able to be manipulated depending on who they're testing that day.

freddiefox absolutely correct but you can find that data online easy enough - number of tests carried out and percentage of those that were positive. It’s been steady for a while and lockdown is only supposed to take effect 21-28 days after implementation (according to other countries’ experiences). So the signs are encouraging, despite the number of deaths.

amelie fine but the government manipulating numbers is getting into conspiracy theory a bit - to what end would they do that?

The number of new cases it’s what’s important and that’s been steady (ie not rising) for 8/9 days now.

Also they keep changing the goals post, if you look at the slides used on their briefings they are very different to the FT ones, which show a bleaker picture compared to the GOV ones. My understanding is the GoV ones show initially showed death rate from 10 + deaths and it’s looked so shocking that they then changed it to 50+ rates so it’s looked better.

@ PianoTuner567
Thanks I’ll have a google for them.

Of course you are not BU.

Many don't agree with the approach and want total lock down.

I'm not sure how they expect the government and us to pay our bills if we do kickdown until vaccine is found.

There is no easy way out of this until we have a vaccine.

We just need to balance lives lost against the economy and most importantly not overwhelming the NHS.

And we need to protect those most vulberable.