Did UK introduce restrictions too early?

[Makeitgoaway]

Hear me out!

I don't think they planned to close schools when they did. I think the Welsh and Scotish governments forced their hand and they themselves were influenced by public opinion more than the science.

When I first heard "the plan" it sounded like there were terrible things to come but it made sense to me, as a way of controlling things as much as possible.

The public didn't like it and there was outrage that we didn't "lockdown" to protect ourselves, although "the public" also didn't behave in any sort of sensible manner to protect themselves as we saw last weekend.

So, measures were in force earlier than planned. The more restrictions there are and the earlier they are in place, the longer this thing will last. The restrictions don't protect "us", they protect the NHS. Most people will need to get it before this is over. Lockdown won't make it go away, just slow the rate of infection, meaning it takes longer to play out. While the NHS is coping, was there any need for the restrictions?

In Italy, it has taken 3 weeks for signs of social unrest to emerge. If that happens here we won't be even close to the peak at that stage. What happens then?

Why did you ask me to repeat in small chunks what I had already written, anyway, MarshaBradyo? In what way does that change the fact the world knew this was coming years ago and developed countries did very little about it?

I’m not asking anything other than the timescale as you seemed to know what you were talking about.

No. Plus Wales and Scotland are in the UK.

@Freshairimportanttoo yes but we will get to a stage where 65% of us will need to have immunity to stop this thing spreading further. The point of lockdown is simply to make sure we slow it down and not all get it at once.

@Walkaround - They will find a vaccine. They are already carrying out human trials.

I think people are enjoying all the catastrophising on here. The situation is awful but things will go back to normal and life will carry on.

Sorry, MarshaBradyo, I misinterpreted what you were getting at. No, I don’t know what I’m talking about any more than anyone else, unfortunately - I’m just interpreting the data I’m reading like everyone else is trying to do!

EYProvider my son's school was closed for 2 weeks due to swine flu. It was near the beginning of the epidemic if I remember rightly.

Walkaround no problem yes I agree with your interpretation

EY read up on it. If you can find a link that says otherwise post it here

The problem with finding a vaccine for this virus is that apparently there is an interaction with the flu vaccination. That is why it is so delicate and will take a while.

OP You are wrong about so many things!

You need to stop thinking of this as an event which has to be experienced by everyone and will end when everyone has had it. Too many people will die that way. Even if it were ethical, there's too little evidence that having it once confers immunity. And if you're aiming for herd immunity, you aim for a certain proportion of the population to get it in small enough numbers that you can keep them and their medics alive and functioning while they have it. If there's a chance that better treatments and a vaccine are on the horizon, you delay even more. If you can prevent the virus being transferred to people above a certain threshold through lockdown, you can then delay and contain until a vaccine is available. Herd immunity, the process by which nature picks off the weakest, is not necessary. That is always desirable. We have been encouraged to think of herd immunity as a wonderful thing. Well it is if you don't die or if it comes via a vaccine. Not if it involves storing bodies at the ice-rink.

If containment seems like a recipe for social unrest, try managing a country in crisis, rather than a country narrowly avoiding it. I know which I'd choose. In the months to come, what you see in the media from developing countries who haven't achieved lockdown will be appalling. A kicked over BBQ or few restless thugs won't compare.

You need to stop thinking politicians have a magic lever they can press which affects today's infection rates. They influence infection rates in a fortnight at best. That's not an exact science. The chances of getting it catastrophically wrong are high. They need to take that into account and above all, not be too late.

You seem to think we have time for people to have it over with before everyone else takes their chances and either dies or recovers. We actually don't have that time. It's also not a question of dying or recovering based on something written in the stars (or an inherent vulnerability that some people seem to think means your death is less tragic and more inevitable). Everyone is in the same boat insofar as your chances of survival are related to how many others are sick at that time. After a certain point, medics too become very affected by this and then your own chances of survival become even more reliant on who else is sick because fewer doctors are available. People die who don't need to.

We won't have the chance to do this again. Some countries are facing loss of life on the scale of a genocide. We're cutting it fine and our escape is far from certain - there seems to be a real consensus on that. Our death rate today would be lower if we had gone into lockdown earlier and people getting ill later this year, provided the care is available, will benefit from more finely treatment options and hopefully more ventilators.

If you thought your family and your family doctor and nurses were at great risk but staying at home for a few weeks would greatly reduce that possibility, surely there are few things that would tempt you out? It's not as if this happens frequently. It's a once in a generation event-we hope.

We will have to explain why we did what we did for many years to come. I'd like to say we did all we could to protect those who care for us and who are most vulnerable, despite the dizzyingly grave consequences which will probably be felt hardest by those in poverty, suffering from mental health issues and poor access to education. It is heartbreaking. But the alternative is also unthinkable.

Nobody has said group immunity is a wonderful thing. It is an inevitable thing - either through a vaccine or through is gaining it by producing antibodies.

*us

Isn’t another problem with herd immunity by mass infection that it gives the virus more opportunity to mutate? And whilst it might mutate to something more benign, it could mutate to a more lethal strain? As far as I understand, herd immunity is achieved by vaccination and it’s very risky to attempt it by getting most of the population to contract the disease. We also don’t know that having it confers immunity anyway.

I don’t understand why swine flu is relevant, except that previous epidemics/pandemics have given some countries experience in handling them (which we should have learned from!) This virus has had a much wider impact and the pressure it is putting on hospitals is far more extreme. We have no choice but to slow the spread in order to keep our medics alive and our hospitals functioning.

Oh my goodness, ov9’s post says it all brilliantly. I wish it was a sticky on all the ‘should we have lockdown?’ threads.

It is an inevitable thing - either through a vaccine or through is gaining it by producing antibodies.

What happens then is that the disease becomes an endemic childhood disease, as the older generation of survivors pass away through other causes and are replaced by a new generation of babies and young children who've not had it yet. You get localised outbreaks of [insert virus name] in towns every few years.

Yes good post especially this

If containment seems like a recipe for social unrest, try managing a country in crisis, rather than a country narrowly avoiding it. I know which I'd choose. In the months to come, what you see in the media from developing countries who haven't achieved lockdown will be appalling. A kicked over BBQ or few restless thugs won't compare.

@PotholeParadise no because by then we will have a vaccine

@CaptainBrickbeard all evidence to date is that this virus is mutating extremely slowly. The maximum base changes to date is 11 out of 30,000. That is slow. There is also a study on macaques which shows once you have immunity you cannot catch it again. Anyway as said group immunity is not a strategy. It is an inevitable outcome. It will just happen whether we like it or not. Watch Italy. 10,000 deaths to date. Applying a 0.1% death rate that is 10m people who have had it. Population of 60m - 40m will get it before it slows to a halt naturally. Through group immunity. That means 40,000 people will die in Italy - unless death rates are higher because of no beds. Italy are 1/4 of the way through this and they will be out by July. UK will follow suit.

no because by then we will have a vaccine

So it's not an 'inevitable.outcome' then, is it? We'll get herd immunity if a vaccine is developed. Otherwise, no, not gonna happen, just as it didn't for measles, mumps or chicken pox.

Great post ov9c99 etc
It just astonishes me how many people just still don’t get it. They appear to be able to read and write yet to them it’s all about “oh let’s just get the disease and get it out of the way”. The consequences are so much more profound than that.

@PotholeParadise let’s see...

Bool I agree with you on not a strategy but outcome. They recently revised figures from 20k downwards. Do you think that lower figure will be likely?

@symbioticpatriot nobody is saying let’s just get it out of the way. This is biology. We won’t have any say in it. It will simply happen whether we like it or not.

@MarshaBradyo I think it will be 40.000 like Italy will be as we have the same population. We are already at 1000 and we are still very early days. I am not saying I like this. My DH has just had it and went to hospital. It was terrifying. I am just saying this is what will happen

Oh no that is scary, is he home? No I don’t think you sound like you like or want it, what you say is making sense to me tbh