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?

I realise that. Risky though - even with massively expedited drug trialling there's no guarantee a vaccine will be ready before the winter surge starts.

True, that is why most countries are not in full Chinese style lockdown. The aim is to extend the peak and keep it under manageable numbers, even for a long time.
Meanwhile, testing capability is being increased, as well as the availability of protective gear.
I don't know in many countries, but in mine research institutions have started producing own tests, local factories and many individuals have started producing hand gel and protective gear, as well as ventilators. All together should increase health care capacity and reduce transmission as well.
Treatment and diagnosis improvement should enable us to face this and prevent or control future surges.

BTW, Germany seems to have levelled off and yesterday's numbers were lower for new cases and for new deaths. We'll have to see if it holds up.
But the main point of testing is that people who are in contact with the vulnerable can stay away. It should have a smaller impact in the economy. Just as long as they manage to keep testing at the current level.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

@Bool, sorry, I was looking for a source of the data, not an explanation. Do you have a link to a veritable source for this 0.1% you keep citing?

Bool Measles and the like are far more contagious than COVID-19. You need 95% group immunity for those. For COVID-19 you need 65% to stop the spread.

Well, yes, that would work in our favour.

liberoncolours

I think that with some viruses they burned themselves out/slowed themselves down/viral load reduced over time. A "successful" virus is considered to be one that doesn't kill its host.

That's exactly what worried me abou this lurgy to start with. It isn't unsuccessful. For every person who dies, it seems there are plenty of asymptomatic carriers, people who think they have a bit of a cold and people who 'just' have it as badly as the flu, so it spreads. In comparison, I never lost a wink of sleep about Ebola reaching the UK and killing my UK-based grandma.

They are taking the number of deaths and adding 3 zeros. That equals a 0.1% death rate.

As far as I'm aware, it's more like a 1% fatality rate (number of dead over number of infected).

0.1% is the flu.

@SabineSchmetterling not I don’t joke about this. My DH has been in hospital this week with COVID. This is no joke.

@lweji that is because there are lots of people symptomless that have had it. They are still trying to find the size of the bottom of the iceberg - but the current estimate is that it is big and death rates are around 0.1%

but the current estimate is that it is big and death rates are around 0.1%

Where did you get that from?

It is quite irresponsible to throw around such figures as certainties without any kind of evidence.

You’re basing that 1% estimate on the fact that the government say it is 1%. If the government wanted to say the death rate was 0.1% and added four 0s to the number of deaths and said that’s how many people have the virus then they could. That’s clearly not evidence.

Realised that all my numbers are out by a decimal place. 🤦‍♀️

For me it was too late, alot of us are prob sat home with this virus,the peak will be in the next few weeks.
People in my area seem to be doing what has been told apart from the odd people who i know that think they can go see family and friends those are just idiots time for fines to start getting put out.

WHO

"Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

In countries with intensive testing:
Germany: 0.8%
South Korea: 1.6%
Singapore: 0.3 % is the lowest.

www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30244-9

If anyone is interested, Professor Kim Woo Ju who is on the frontline in Korea gave a very informative interview to Asian Boss (on YouTube) as to the numbers in Korea and how cultural differences play in transmission rates. It was very interesting, but I can't get the link on my phone atm.

@Lweji thank you for those statistics. Let's hope that the low end is achievable in the UK over the coming months.

es it is how our science and medical officer are estimating the number who have it. They are taking the number of deaths and adding 3 zeros. That equals a 0.1% death rate.

It is actually more complicated than that. What they are doing is saying - if one person has died they represent 100 people (1% death rate) who were infected 16 (approx) days ago. During those sixteen days the number of cases has doubled about 3 times - so there will now be 100 x2 x2 x2 cases = 800 . Therefore the one death is representative of 800 people being infected now. They are probably using more precise figures than me, (or rounding it) which is why they have 1000 instead of 800, but hopefully you see how it works.

@Lweji exactly. And those figures from Singapore and Germany still won’t be picking up everyone that has it. So 0.1% is a fair estimate.

@Oakmaiden yep I don’t have full access to exactly how they are doing it but we end up in the same place.

About a million will die in the UK.
We'll still have 65m left, and still be greatly over populated.

@Oakmaiden ah except 1% is too high - as seen by actual data from the diamond princess and Singapore.

That makes much more sense, Oakmaiden. Deaths have actually doubled almost exactly 7 times in the last sixteen days, however, which should give 10,000 for every 1. So maybe they are using a 0.1% fatality rate? Or maybe they just totally make up their figures, like they did with the "4 weeks behind Italy" stat.

Your figures for the Diamond Princess appear to be out by a large margin. www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256

I agree with you. I think they wanted to hold off. However, I think they were pushed by various outside groups - scientists, WHO, the media, public opinion, schools. In response they perhaps first tried to create a half way ground by the “advice” re social distancing. What I think they would have done originally was simply asked the vulnerable to self isolate (which is what they should have done). However due to all the outside pressure they were forced to combine this with asking the public not
to go to bars and pubs etc, which just led to confusion and issues. It then paved the way for a faster public lockdown. We are now in a situation where the gov probably originally wanted to keep restrictions of some kind in place for 3 months, and keep increasing them until I’d guess they would
have used the total lockdown to reduce the risk of civil unrest. Now they’re stuck with us all being in lockdown for that amount of time which is going to cause all sorts of problems. As the OP said, just when things are really getting seriously bad for the NHS people will have exhausted their tolerance of the lockdown.

That methodology doesn't make sense A death rate describes the number of deaths out of the number infected. Both measures have to be taken at the same time surely? Out of the 1000 people infected on 2 March 10 have died. Therefore extrapolate to an overall death rate of 1%. Otherwise the death rate just increases even once we've administered a vaccine and no one new is getting it.

@nellodee yep. But what do you think is the average age on a cruise ship?

@Candycane45 yep agree.