This is what has always troubled me about total lockdown

[Makeitgoaway]

I don't understand how we get out of it.

Of course, it should reduce transmission while we're all locked down but unless the whole world has it under control, as soon as we start getting back to normal, it will all start again. As they're beginning to see in China.

Is this going to become a regular way of life, with lockdown annually or every few years?

Again, and I'm not an expert, have just looked into this, experts dont think that is particularly unusual - there will always be exceptions who don't develop immunity but as this is so new and not studied in depth they can't draw conclusions.

3 weeks into lockdown and social unrest is starting Italy, there is a huge cost to lockdown.

news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122

Regardless of what happens next, I think we have a moral duty to put up with lockdown for a number of weeks or months, if only to give the PPE manufacturers enough time to make enough PPE so that frontline healthcare workers don't die from treating COVID19 patients because we were in such a a rush to revive the economy, that we were unwilling to wait for their personal protection equipment to get manufactured in sufficient volumes!

Then, who knows … maybe in 2-3 months there will also a treatment protocol using antivirals, etc. that can halve the risk of severe illness, and enough testing kits to be able to identify patients earlier thereby reducing the rate of transmission, and small volumes available of an experimental vaccine that can reduce the rate of death for frontline healthcare worker, and and and …

The point of lockdown right now is to buy time so that various companies and smart people can make this more survivable for more of the people who will become exposed to it at some point.

When the term 'herd immunity' was first mentioned here the vast majority of health spokespeople from other parts of the world said it was an appalling, unproven gamble. No-one really can predict how this virus works and the idea of letting people get infected so that the 'herd' develops immunity was described as a joke by a leading epidemiologist from Yale. It's Darwinian isn't it, the survival of the fittest? It may well come to that, but I don't think it should ever have been government policy. Let's hope Boris and his chums are developing their immunity right now.

I’m interested to know how much the numbers are skewed re those who died WITH Coronavirus and those who died as a direct result OF Coronavirus as they are currently both counted

@Pliudev the idea was to risk the fittest in order to protect the weak so not exactly Darwinian. Our vaccination programs run on the same principle (I’m not saying it’s the same, obviously vaccines are properly tested etc. etc. more that herd immunity is specifically developed by strong members and confers the most benefit to the weakest).

Sorry, I thought the idea was to let the herd get it, the vulnerable ones take their chances and the fittest survive and develop immunity. Long term it might benefit the herd but a fair few would fall by the wayside in the process wouldn't they? And as a theory it is, as I'm sure you'll agree, unproven when applied to the spread of a virus.

Yes Gin96. This is why Boris wanted to delay. Public pressure (IMO) forced him to tighten the restrictions earlier than he wanted to, we could get to that point long before the peak is reached.

Riots in Wuhan as well. You'd be pretty desperate to riot in China I would imagine.

So, three weeks in Italy for the first signs of trouble to emerge ..

There is no need immunity without vaccine. People will die in their millions with that idea. Either we need vaccine, treatment, or everyone in the world to isolate until there are no cases.

@Pliudev no, the idea was that the vulnerable take precautions to avoid catching it while the healthy catch it, develop immunity and it dies as a result. But obviously that would only work if the vulnerable actually isolated until herd immunity was achieve which is unrealistic.

Good grief, some of the comments on here are terrifying! Careful not to let eugenics become incrementally more acceptable!

We need to look at this holistically. Yes, grandma and grandpa are in her 70s, but if they’re fit and socially active, they could well have another 20+ years.

And those years aren’t economic drain - they could be there giving emotional support to younger family, they could be involved in the community (a lot of mum and baby groups are run by the elderly, and I personally owe my mental health to some. Their kindness and advice just in a baby group once a week made the difference between tipping over into PND or not).

If more elderly and vulnerable people die because of lack of action in slowing the spread, then that’s not just economic stats. That’s lots of potential for those left dealing with grief, depression or anxiety, or isolation. If you’re one of the commenters here so keen on economy then it’s also losing a lot of childcare that allowed parents to work.

We need to do all we can to buy time until there are more medicines to reduce the symptoms, and vaccines to stop it. We definitely don’t want to allow already vulnerable people to be gently nudged into feeling they’re taking up resources. They are valued members of us all.

That'll be 18 months-2 years then? Enjoy your lockdown. Hope you have enough £££ to get you through

Ave life expectancy here is 73 for men and 77 for women btw, for context

Which brings us back to those stats about up to 2/3 of those dying of covid were going to die within a year anyway ...

It's really shit that we are in the middle of a pandemic but whole country lockdown is unsustainable. The sooner people start accepting reality, the better.

We can adapt during the lockdown. I know a lot of the population do have to move about to do their job, but a lot of people who don’t are managing to work from home or refocus their businesses to keep going. So while of course it’s a terrible time, it’s not like the whole economy has ground to a halt. It just takes rethinking to try to minimise the number of people having to travel about.

Ave life expectancy here is 73 for men and 77 for women btw, for context

Which brings us back to those stats about up to 2/3 of those dying of covid were going to die within a year anyway ...

Not true at all.

The ONS said a woman who has reached 65 years old can now expect to live another 21.5 years, up three months on the figure it reported in 2018. Men at age 65 will live on average another 19.1 years, up from 18.8 years in 2018.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/03/life-expectancy-in-england-rebounds-after-years-of-stagnation

Which brings us back to those stats about up to 2/3 of those dying of covid were going to die within a year anyway ...

It's really shit that we are in the middle of a pandemic but whole country lockdown is unsustainable. The sooner people start accepting reality, the better.

The main issue with covid isn't so much who and how many die, but the type of illness that requires even younger and healthier people to stay in hospital hooked to a ventilator to survive. Death rates would and will be a lot worse when all ventilators are being used.
It's the time they have to spend in hospital - about 2 weeks.
It's how it also affects health workers, who won't be able to work if most of them get ill because they are exhausted and will be more exposed.
It's the consuming of health resources when other diseases and many conditions also require hospitals and treatment and health services were already stretched.
It's the fact that even a 0.1% mortality rate among the young means a lot of people dying because this virus spreads very fast and very easily.
It's the bodies mounting up with no capacity to bury them properly.

I hope you don't bitterly regret your words in a couple of weeks.

So far, it's the people who've minimised this virus that have regretted it.

• @Pliudev no, the idea was that the vulnerable take precautions to avoid catching it while the healthy catch it *

I just want to repeat this (I agree with it) for emphasis - the idea was always to isolate and protect the vulnerable and let the stronger ones get on with it and get immunity.

I believe some people spread the nasty and false version (that the old and vulnerable would be left to catch it and take their chances) on purpose, and we need to be more sceptical of what we read and hear.

I keep saying I was one of the ones who was able to see, as it was actually blatantly obvious, how serious this was. My point is that lockdown now is too late and the disadvantages now outweigh the advantages. Done earlier along with the vital testing, it would have stood a chance. But a long-term lockdown is unsustainable therefore a short term one is pointless

We are not yet at capacity in icu and it's a 50% survival rate once you get ventilated.

Ave life expectancy, whist you may not realise this in middle class mumsnet world, is extremely variable countrywide. Those stats I gave are the actual stats for my area.

And austerity is lowering ave life expectancy as it is. What do you think a global depression will do to those rates+

In some areas of the UK male life expectancy is 66, which is actually below retirement age! The rich and middle classes have always screwed over the poor

And in many of the areas you mention the NHS services would be completely overwhelmed by uncontainable COVID-19. For everyone.

The UK average is the UK average. It's not a race to the bottom.

We are not yet at capacity in icu and it's a 50% survival rate once you get ventilated.

But we will be at capacity soon going by the exponential growth rate. Then what?

we need to be more sceptical of what we read and hear.

Couldn't agree more - critical thinking has just gone out of the window

It's patchy.
There may be capacity across the UK, but not in, say, London where it's hitting harder for now and it will get worse. The usual growth rate is the number of cases doubling every 2-3 days.

Without containment, then other areas will start reaching capacity too.

It may seem fine where most people live, for now.