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.

"Herd immunity is only achieved with over 90% being vaccinated."

Think about it. If your nan is vulnerable right now no one can go near her safely. But soon her postman will have had it, the local nurse will have had it, her next door neighbour and maybe you. So her chances of catching it will then be smaller and she can get help from people.

The same for people who we need to allow out to work. If half the people on the bus have had it then they are safer already. The more people who are immune (and we have no reason right now to think they won't be) the more we can relax restrictions. It's not an 'all or nothing' deal.

@Theluggage15 you're wrong, 980 deaths in one day, not altogether

My mother died of COVID this week. Her death certificate clearly states COVID although she was never tested. She was in a care home. It is clear to me that diagnosis can be made on symptoms alone and the medical profession are happy to do that for a death certificate. I know some countries that are taking the view that if you have symptoms they assume COVID and act accordingly e.g. contact tracing etc..... They are not waiting for tests.....

jewel I am so very sorry for your loss

My friend is a specialist respiratory nurse. She is seeing many many cases of people ill with covid 19 who are under 55, non smokers and who are usually fit and well.

Each shift she leaves these patients who are quite unwell and returns the next day to find a proportion moved to intensive care. Many of these have died and others will die. She has never seen anything like it taking the lives of otherwise healthy people.

Please believe her when she says we are all at risk and many of the statistics reflect people who were not going to die anyway.

@jewel1968 I'm sorry for your loss.

The gov.Uk website states that "The figures on deaths relate in almost all cases to patients who have died in hospital and who have tested positive for COVID-19."

The real statistics will show a much more daunting figure, as your mum's case demonstrates.

as pointed out above 980 did not die yesterday. The total number of deaths went up by 980. Many of those were recorded between 1st and 8th April.

I've no idea if there is equivalent figures in for the UK but in Scotland we are getting daily figures on the number of people in hospital and in ICU. These are leveling off. Of course we can't say we are out of the woods but the numbers aren't spiraling.

Also produced by National Records Scotland is how many of recorded deaths have COVID mentioned on the death certificate (including suspected and probable) In the 14 weeks since the first COVID death 17500 Scottish People have died of non COVID related causes.

Thanks folk for your kind messages. I imagine her care home will be full of the virus and none of their deaths will be counted. People are also dieing in their homes. Can't understand if a doc states COVID on death certificate why isn't that taken into account.

Community and care home covid deaths are counted on a Tuesday once a week

The government daily figures are of people hospitalised and tested. As has been explained, almost daily, non hospital deaths are added when the ONS publish their data AND BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO TIME LAG.

So we are getting data on deaths all causes as well as deaths attributed to CV.

The daily total is, as has been explained almost daily, is the measure chosen, by the UK and other governments, as the measure they discuss publicly, consistently.

This is the message I had got from the Govt and PHE but other people really seem to think that we are supposed to be preventing people catching it and they are terrified of it (which I understand for people with known vulnerabilities because it is scary if you are high risk).

No, it’s because the message changed. The original message was the herd immunity one and the rest of the world was looking at us and thinking WTAF. then Imperial pointed out to them what that would actually look like in terms of numbers and there was a policy shift and a subsequent half arsed late lockdown. The problem is that because they can’t admit to making the mistake in the first place a lot of people are still stuck thinking they are supposed to be getting it.

No, 980 people did die in the UK, with the virus 2 days ago. Today's released figure is 917 deaths with the virus, in hospitals, for yesterday.

Nearly 10,000 people have died in the UK in hospitals, with this virus, so far. And those figures and words are from the BBC news site.

Here

Lucky that you have the option to stay at home Random. But you'll send your kids to school ! Let's hope the teachers are willing to go to work then - oh wait, they still are! Sounds like you just want to do what suits you !

Communication from the top has been really pretty confusing and has led many people to believe that we’re on lockdown to try and eradicate it. I think the message needs to be made much clearer: “pretty much everyone is expected to catch this, because a vaccine is at least two years away and we can’t all stay indoors and not do our jobs until then. We are trying to ensure that people catch it slowly and steadily so as not to burden the health system.

I tried to say this to my boss the other day, who’s shielding his wife, and he completely dismissed it and disagreed, which confused me again (because I respect his opinion)

I feel the message has been lost about the virus. My assumption was that we will all get it. We are told to stay at home to ‘flatten the curve’, that meaning that our healthcare service cannot cope if everyone contracted it - because a) the sickest people would require treatment/intensive care, and would unlikely survive and b) even in healthy people, this virus is deadly, and a proportion of them would require intensive care, and may not survive. By slowing down the spread, the NHS can cope.

Is the right or have I misunderstood?

I access the data here on case/deaths. It’s a very comprehensive tracking system with footnotes etc (which I can’t get up from my phone today, normally on my laptop)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases

I’ve print screened the information about how they record it, and the history of confirmed cases/deaths both daily and cumulatively.

I agree with you @Macaroni46. Good job some people are prepared to carry on working, or to go back to work isn't it! Everything h while grind to a halt without such piece. That are also paying their taxes too so that other people's kids can be educated, other people can be treated by the NHS, and to provide money for the government to bail others out.

#I'mallrightjack.

Why the hell should others go back to work whilst some benefit by shielding themselves. Unless you are specifically at risk this should not be acceptable .

Sorry that should say 'everything would grind to a halt without such people'.

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

So they are accepting that millions of us will die then?

*feel the message has been lost about the virus. My assumption was that we will all get it. We are told to stay at home to ‘flatten the curve’, that meaning that our healthcare service cannot cope if everyone contracted it - because a) the sickest people would require treatment/intensive care, and would unlikely survive and b) even in healthy people, this virus is deadly, and a proportion of them would require intensive care, and may not survive. By slowing down the spread, the NHS can cope.

Is the right or have I misunderstood?*

That’s my understanding, for the GOV it’s not about not getting it, it’s us getting it slowly over time, well 80% of us..
The only other option would be for everyone to stay home for a month and the virus wouldn’t have anywhere to spread to but that would cause many deaths too.

It would be interesting to find out what stopped SARS and MERS.

I know it’s boring but the deaths announced does not mean they all died on that day. Just refer to this website amongst any others for explanation. www.cebm.net/covid-19/reconciling-covid-19-death-data-in-the-uk/

Also, do you realise just how slow you have to make the spread? 10 years or more.

And do you realise how difficult it would b to keep the spread that slowwithout implementing a series of lockdowns?

We can't eliminate it but we can squash it, and we can should (I think) do what other countries have done in testing and tracing to keep it squashed until vaccine or good treatment becomes available .

Saves lives and avoid the likelihood of more extremely damaging lockdowns all at once

SARS and I think MERS stopped because they symptoms appeared as soon as anyone was infectious so the rate of transmission was slow which meant that it was more easily eradicated by a test and trace approach. Also it didn't get into th liberal west with its reluctance to act strongly.

We don't have a full lockdown because the Government want as many people as possible to keep working, so the economy stays as healtthy as possible.

But yes, in general I think a certain number of people falling ill and dying are seen as an acceptable tradeoff for the economy, so the idea is simply to keep the number needing hospitalisation manageable. So they don't need us all to be in a strict lockdown (or for us all to follow the rules) as long as enough people do to keep the spread slow.

I was reading yesterday about this economic/health theoretical proposal and it sounds like it might be promising.

If I have read it correctly it is suggesting a 2 week work/lockdown cycle to keep some of the economy going without over stretching he health services. It mentions 4 days working and 10 days lockdown but says the day numbers could be varied either way.

I have no idea how sound it is but it is interesting to read the an idea about how things could be.