How can the UK gov or anyone read this and not put the UK on lockdown?

[UnderReview]

The NHS won't. and shouldn't have to, cope with this...

Travel should have been stopped. Borders closed. People put in to lockdown.

ICU Doctor from Italy on current situation

Isn't just like flu? You feel extremely unwell with a chest cough and sore throat but most healthy people just ride through it? Those that are vulnerable; elderly, those with low immunity etc should be concerned and need to be protected but the rest of us, we just ride through it, no?

Is worse than flu - double the death rate even for younger people. And recovery can take weeks, with pneumonia even for a lot of the 'mild/moderate' cases.

But even without that it will affect everyone. Ill people (not all old or vulnerable) who need treatment will all be trying to get it, even if they've not much chance of getting it once enough people are ill at once. Hospitals will be clogged up, nothing like enough beds, the govt have said 20% of the workforce (including nhs and other essential workers) could be off sick at once. People (ok, maybe not you, lucky you) will end up dying at home. The economy will take a massive hit. This isn't wild speculation, it's a likely outcome if the infection rate soars like it did in Wuhan.

Even people who feel confident about surviving the illness itself are going to be very badly affected if we can't make a massive collective effort to slow this right down. But if we can do that, it could make a huge difference.

How do you define "lockdown"?

Shutting the schools seems a weird obsession people have. In the UAE they have closed the schools for 4 weeks, but not shopping malls, theme parks, flights in and out, hotels, theatres or anywhere else. It's useful as a way to be seen to be doing something, but completely pointless really. In this country, closing schools will have a devastating impact on the parents. Children account for 20% ish of the population, that's a lot of parents who won't be able to go into work, and many of them will be essential workers. And children aren't the high risk category of patient anyway. We should be closing churches, bingo halls, entertainment venues, casinos, cinemas etc. before we close the schools.

Forgive my ignorance but proposing everyone is told to WFH (presumably in computer based jobs) wouldnt there be a need for IT/broadband folks to be working to keep systems up and running? I work for a small business and I feel sure if we went into lockdown and couldnt work, (cant WFH) it would go bust.

I’d love to know what all these people do that are working from home and simultaneously looking after young children?! I certainly couldn’t concentrate on my job at home with two young primary age kids around.

Shutting schools will mean the already stretched NHS staff will be covering for people without childcare, plus covering the work of the staff isolation, plus covering the extra number of patients. It's just not possible to care for people adequately in these conditions.
A lot of people don't have relatives/child minders to call on to help.

The S.Korean experience with far far higher testing, shows a death rate around 0.7 %, so, widespread testing, good healthcare, i fear some govt's are not testing enough, allowing the disease to become endemic.

asiatimes.com/2020/03/why-are-koreas-covid-19-death-rates-so-low/

The point for me is not that a lockdown right now is the right thing to do - I'm not sure it is - but that it's entirely feasible that, despite all the negative consequences people have pointed out, it could still end up being the lesser of two evils.

The same goes for schools being closed. I think we should be prepared for both of those things to happen.

They should at least advise companies to ask employees to WFH if possible. I get the tube and it's worrying

Some of this seems a bit extreme.

Even in Italy, people go to work, even in the 'lockdown' and restaurants are open if you keep your distance.

Schools could be partially open, to those who are either essential workers or who cannot find childcare, with those staff who are still well. This would solve part of the overcrowding/all squashed in together problem, as well as the fact soon a lot of teaching staff will be off if they have to self-isolate for a cold.

Lots of people can work from home, or partly work from home or reduce travel at work and lots of private companies have already started their staff on this (lots haven't but many have).

It doesn't have to be blanket bans yet, except for those in complete self-isolation due to being high risk (through contact/travel).

I agree that we need to do more than we are doing currently.

In my view, it appears Matt Hancock & BJ are dragging their heals either intentionally or through ignorance - neither are excusable. A civilised and morally just society should take care of its vulnerable and elderly.

Switzerland (with virtually identical stats to us), has already banned public events with more than 1,000 people. While China measures are extreme, cases have dropped significantly.

What's important is our basic needs. Globalisation has a lot to answer for.

Swizerland only has £8m people, roughly the same population as London. We have a similar number of cases in the whole of the UK, their stats are in no way at all similar to ours, yet. They are far more advanced into this than we are.

A civilised and morally just society should take care of its vulnerable and elderly

Are we that though - If the majority agreed with and supported that assertion we wouldn't have this government in the first place.

Swizerland only has £8m people, roughly the same population as London

How dare you try and bring any actual logic into this discussion!

There are no precedents for taking action like this - emergency planning in the UK post 1945 focused on the "nuclear" scenario which had a very (!) different end and recovery point AND was expected to have a long lead in AND the UK's public sector was much greater AND the state had a much greater control of industry in general

Post 1991 emergency planning has generally focused on events that are limited to a city or region (which would be most common) and hence the resources of the rest of the UK can be applied to that area

I don't really understand. There was no precedent for a nuclear war scenario either, but the government still had detailed plans for what to do, right?

Are you saying that in the wake of H1N1, SARS and MERS, in a time when basically everyone has accepted for a good couple of decades at least that a global epidemic is one of the greatest and most likely threats we face, our government still doesn't have detailed emergency plans for such an event? I know our government are mostly a bunch of useless bastards but even I don't believe that.

Jaxhog, with polite respect, we are not completely different to Italy. Their economy is heavily focussed in the north, the area quarantined first. Their economy heavily relies on tourism too and they were quick to deter that. They have twice the icu beds we do but they already at crisis point. They are at bed capacity already working around the clock and making difficult choices about who they should treat. Their northern hospitals are better than ours but they’re already at the limit. Why do you think the death toll has leapt in the last two days? Those more likely to survive are bring prioritised,

They were at our stage two to three weeks ago. They wish they’d taken stricter measures sooner. They can’t believe we’re not learning from them.

This isn’t speculation on my part, I have a lot of family there and have been following both outbreaks closely

Worth noting Italy has tested far more people than us since the start. More testing equals more known cases. If we go up the testing as Hancock suggests I expect to see 1,000 cases here by the weekend

We have to think about the strain on the nhs and other patients as well as on those vulnerable to CV.

I think strict half measures for a week might help... all those who physically can work from home or take kids out of school do. That will slow it down because every workplace and school would be less crowded. If it doesn’t slow it down then go for stricter measures

Lockdown is not realistic. Asking people who can to wfh is a pretty minor thing to do but could have an impact.

And ultimately I do feel that a large proportion of the workforce being off sick or dead wouldn’t be great for the economy either. Nor would the larger shutdown required if it gets bigger.

Alloutoff I agree it’s worth trying that first. Also letting those who can for school kids do so. Offices and public transport being less crowded should help.

Are we that though - If the majority agreed with and supported that assertion we wouldn't have this government in the first place.

And a lot of the elderly we’re now supposed to take extreme measures to protect from CV probably voted for them in the first place

What happens with care homes? My grandad is in a home and visiting him over the weekend more than half the staff called in sick and were self isolating. One carer said she would struggle to self isolate if she had to as SSP was a drastic drop from her weekly pay.

If we have a shutdown will residents go home to their families? (Fine for those who do have family)
Will carers be forced to stay onsite? Will residents be left to fend for themselves or will essential services (like these) be expected to go to work

Pandora’s box is open. Lockdown won’t solve things, a far more effective way to save the vulnerable (my DM, chemo patient ) would be for them to be locked down and those of us who like our chances to take the hit. If enough of us get it we can develop herd immunity which will be a much better protector of the vulnerable. No one wants it but in a pinch I’d rather if were me and my kids. We are in a pinch.

You just KNOW the OP has a garage full of bog roll

Lockdown worked for China

Probably that should read "lockdown reduced the initial surge in cases in Wuhan". We have not reached the end of this yet - I don't think China are home and dry by any means. I hope I am wrong, but I think they have a long way to go yet.