I think to understand what seems like some really bizarre decisions you need to understand that the UK government are taking a different approach to any other government. They want a level of spread. The idea being if 60% of the population get it we develop as a country a level of herd immunity, preventing another huge outbreak next winter.
NY Times article.
It's possible to find arguments for this being a potentially good idea, though also a gamble. Right now only time will tell if it'll turn out that going a completely different direction will pay off or not. I've seen respected scientists arguing both ways. I think more fall on the side that this is a risky and will cause a lot of death.
My concerns are
- We don't yet know enough about this coronavirus to know if immunity is possible, or if a 60% infection rate is even nearly enough to confer herd immunity. Many flu viruses and other coronaviruses mutate every year hence new vaccines every year. Who knows if people being immune now means they will be immune next flu season? The government has a risky plan that is meant to reduce future deaths. If people are not immune after infection for whatever reason, we will have huge numbers of deaths now and no herd immunity to prevent future deaths later either.
- The spread is exponential. How do you control that? If you put only small measures in to prevent spread, how do you then slow it once a critical mass of people have been infected? Especially with limited testing. While infection rates in the general population can probably be extrapolated from the amount of deaths and hospital admissions in an area, surely by the time a hospital is close to being overwhelmed, it's too late as there will be huge numbers of people in the community soon to be seriously sick with no beds left. There's a delay between getting infected and being sick enough to need hospital treatment.
- We can't control who gets the virus. Current measures mean everyone, young and old, healthy or sick, are at similar risk of infection. But we know that only some of us are vulnerable to complications and death as a result. The government intend to 'cocoon' the elderly and vulnerable at some point, to allow everyone else to get infected and have immunity. There are problems with that though, such as risks for people who need carers. But not least the issue is that right now there are no cocooning measures in place. The government has said at some point soon they will tell the vulnerable and those over 70 to stay home. But not yet. How many people are the government willing to let die before those measures are introduced? I can't help but feel we are not human beings for many of the people behind this. We are numbers to the modellers working on this, and a certain number of us can be lost if the models show overall it's worth it. Maybe you need that steely nosed approach but I think it's scary.
My husband and I are young (32 and 34), both us and our children are unlikely to get seriously ill. We will have a higher chance of being ok with the government's plan. But my in-laws are 74 and 76, one has asthma and heart disease, and we rely on them for childcare. My parents are younger but my father has had respiratory problems in the past and regularly gets bronchitis and pneumonia. We also rely on them for childcare. Right now we are working out how we can both continue to work but not have them offer childcare. The risk to them is so much higher and by the time 'cocooning' measures are in place it's going to be too late for large amounts of the older and more vulnerable population. I think the elderly and vulnerable who can need to start their own cocooning measures now. For my in-laws that would be not seeing the grandchildren and the one who works in a busy city centre location to stop working. Stay home as much as possible, still walk the dog and go to shops but wash hands frequently and don't have visitors. Avoid gatherings large and small, work from home if you can.
I think we should all be advising our elderly and vulnerable relatives to reduce contact with others as much as they can. Especially children while schools are remaining open even in the face of infection. Not everyone will be able to do this of course but it has the potential to slow the spread and therefore be a protective move for everyone, surely? We all have a responsibility to do what we can to protect ourselves and therefore others, and even more so to protect those who can't protect themselves, e.g. the 72 year old man with heart disease who can't stop work due to finances. Together we can help protect those people a little bit.
I'm obviously not an expert. But from all I've read this makes sense to me so I want to let others know and I also would love to know others thoughts to help me understand everything better. I may have misunderstood - there's certainly plenty of room for misunderstanding after all.