Question re Herd immunity and collateral damage

[Letsdoanamechangeagain]

So, increasingly the rest of the world is in lockdown.

At the moment the UK is not taking any drastic measures as its too early. I can understand that.

But, someone please explain to me (genuine question) if they are trying to flatten the curve, why aren't additional social distancing measures being put in place?

Why isnt the government encouraging people to work from home as official policy for example?

If their aim is to get 60% of the population infected to get herd immunity. The stats I've seen indicate that around 15% of that 60% will be severely ill and 1% will die. So, that's just collateral damage and tough shit basically?

Also, I read in the news a few weeks back that a lady in Japan had the virus, recovered and then was re infected news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-japan-confirms-first-case-of-person-being-reinfected-with-covid-19-11944295

If this thought to be the case, then this strategy seems very dangerous. Add to that scientists are still working to understand the virus and they aren't sure of it's long term effects or immunity as yet.

I also just cannot get my head around the number of people that could potentially die and the government just seem to be going "meh" 🤷‍♀️

I understand saving the more drastic measures to closer the peak, but right now, even smaller measures aren't being done. I dont understand it....

The science is that "most " people who get it will develop an immunity. And in the long run if we go down this route in the long term less people will die as when it comes back round again.
Yes people will die this time and if they succeed in "flattening the curve " less will die as the nhs will be better able to cope.

No matter what the government does people will die. This is about damage limitation.

On another thread a poster was asking to link sources for stats being posted, which is absolutely fair enough

60% herd immunity
www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity-uk-nhs-outbreak-pandemic-government-a9399101.html

15% of infections being severely ill
fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/

There are other places I've seen those figures quoted, but just so I can show I'm not pulling stuff out of my arse!

Because, in theory, herd immunity is the quickest route to safety.

To extinct a virus you have 3 options:

1. Vaccinate enough people to achive herd immunity that way. Probably a year or so away from there being one we can use.

1. Everyone locks down totally. No one leaves their houses until you are absolutely sure that there are zero infected/carriers left because those that had it have gotten over it or died. This could take months and involves closed borders as well. Plus it's unrealistic. People will not stay in their houses for months without going out. They can't but also they won't. You only have to look on here to see hundreds of excuses why isolation doesn't apply to posters. If you get this strategy wrong and there is still a carrier left when everyone comes out of isolation, many people will not have immunity and the whole issue starts again in the same way it is today. If you let someone in the country with the virus - the same thing. You could repeat the lock down process many times and each time someone will sabotage it.

1. You opt for herd immunity. This allows people to keep living thier lives - which they are mor elikely to do. You try to slow down the rate of infection by not allowing mass infections all at once (large gatherings) so that your emergency services can cope and give a quality of care to everyone who gets very ill - thus hopefully reducing the fatalities.

Number 3 is the only realistic option in a country where free will is allowed.

Thank you for the detailed responses, I appreciate it.

So it really is tough shit to anyone who gets severely ill this time round and collateral damage for the greater good, what a hideous prospect

It kind of is, though obviously those that are vulnerable and that can do so, could self isolate right now to try and protect themselves.

Appreciate that not everyone can do that, though, for a variety of reasons.

Great post Shark, glad to see rationality has not been entirely thrown through the Corona virus window.

@SharkasticBitch
Thank you for putting it so much better than I did

Thousands of people die every year from the flu. Mostly the elderly.
There's no outcry about that.

I agree with Shark. The lockdown approach worked well in China but is very very difficult to replicate in a country without that level of government control over people's lives.

I was reading something the other day about the government wanting us to realise ourselves how serious it is. By doing this when they introduce the lock downs etc we will be much more compliant and we will be relieved that they bring in additional measures rather than frustrated... Quite clever actually if this is the reason they have not done much yet!

Is herd immunity works in this way then why do we have vaccinations for childhood illnesses?

Because we have those vaccinations available.

If a covid 19 vaccine was available, we’d be using it.

As it’s not, our best option is to flatten the curve, and all gradually catch it. Preferably in the summer when the NHS will be better able to cope.

Jobseeker - because giving the majority of the population a vaccination is another way of getting herd immunity. Not possible in this case as there isn't a vaccine yet.

No matter what the government does people will die

This is true, but if no/minimal effort is made to "flatten the curve" and an unnesessarily large number get it all at the same time, the health service will be completely unable to cope and MORE people will die, mostly the elderly or those with underlying conditions.

I really don't understand why they're not doing more to try and slow it down

Number 3 is the only realistic option in a country where free will is allowed

No. Number 3 is the option in a country where our "leaders" see us like cattle abd are comfortable with watching us die and aren't willing to properly resource initiatives that will save lives.

Blaming their inaction on us because "you wouldn't do it anyway" is like victim blaming in an abusive relationship "you made me do it".

What about blitz spirit? That wasn't so long ago.

We've got lots of potential threats on the horizon, not least climate change.

Our government have just shown that when faced with crisis they are quite happy to let us die.

Please wake up to what's going on here. It's criminally irresponsible.

@SharkasticBitch is correct. #3 is the best and effective long term prospect.

I also think they haven't factored in long term Lung damage from actually surviving it. Well as long as you live long term as it will drastically shorten your life

They're not doing more yet because there is still capacity in the NHS to treat more people (albeit with disruption to BAU healthcare). They basically want to run as near to capacity as possible so that we get to the point of herd immunity sooner and the most vulnerable (as well as the rest of the population) don't have to self isolate for as long.

@somanydevices what do you think should happen & why would that be a better strategy?

Just google pulmonary fibrosis and covid 19 to see the research they are doing in survivors, and not necessarily people who had it badly. It is very very scary stuff.

somanydevices I think people will only realise the reality of what they are so glibly defending when the bodies start to pile up.

’No. Number 3 is the option in a country where our "leaders" see us like cattle abd are comfortable with watching us die and aren't willing to properly resource initiatives that will save lives.’

What initiatives should they resource? Is there something you know would work that they’re ignoring?

The peak is estimated to be 10 weeks away or so. How can we lock the country down until then?

Also those countries that have done this may well find that it all starts up again once they return to normal.

When we do put lockdown in place cases will continue to increase exponentially for two weeks as those who caught it before lockdown get ill.

We are close to capacity in the NHS already.

Thanks Shark for your clear post.

“Collateral damage” is I think one of the most chilling phrases in our language.

These are all much loved and valuable individuals, who have made
important contributions to the rich life of our nation for many years in many different ways, either personally or professionally. No one single individual is less worthy of care than any other. However, there appears to be an assumption amongst Cabinet/Cobra members that the “vulnerable” somehow contribute less to society than others, in economic terms certainly, and are therefore expendable for the greater good.

My husband of 35 years falls into three of the categories considered most at risk. He does not spend his time at home, watching daytime television and generally being a bit of a societal problem, as seems to be the fairly widely held wrong and dangerous perception of people in these categories. He holds a senior, niche role in public finance, his knowledge and expertise generating multi-millions of pounds annually to the long-term benefit of public sector workers and services to the wider public. On a personal basis, he has contributed large sums in taxation to the public purse over decades.

If he is lost to this virus, as is just as likely as not, I and his family will be bereft at the loss of a wonderful human being. The bigger picture and financial bottom line: he would be extremely difficult to replace on a professional basis, his loss of expertise would be felt directly and indirectly by thousands of public sector workers for some years as our economy struggles to recover.

To be clear, if my husband were to spend his days at home watching daytime television he would be deserving of the best care the country could provide. I refuse to entertain for one second the disgusting notion that individuals are worth only what they can contribute to the coffers. We are a society: our current circumstances are precisely when we need to rise to our duty to care for everyone who is less able to care for themselves.
I used our personal example solely to demonstrate the short sightedness of this callous policy.
Please take note, Mr. Johnson, it will have repercussions you have not even considered as you lose decades of skill and expertise in one fell swoop if you continue to fail to consider and value the health of the nation in its entirety. Learn from China, further restrictive measures must be taken, now.