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?

We've just had a 14 year old die in Portugal. He didn't have to.
People are dying in all age groups.
If we were to let it run unchecked among everyone but the vulnerable, many would still die that didn't have to.
Don't assume that you wouldn't because you're not in a vulnerable group.
Don't think that you wouldn't need a ventilator and there would be one for you.

The truth is that no one really knows, the computer models are simulations. Infections reported today could be 14 days old, deaths 21 days. The next three weeks are crucial to see if the pseudo lockdown has flattened the peak.
The 1 in 8 key workers have no choice, they are the ones chosen to be the bellwether of infection, to be the herd. These are the less vulnerable, the others will be let out of the cattle shed gradually over the coming 6 months.

SabineSchmetterling

How would you isolate all of the vulnerable without isolating all of the carers, medical professionals and delivery people who interact with them? How would you stop them catching it whilst it spreads through hospitals? Shielding the vulnerable is not possible whilst the virus spreads totally unchecked in the wider population. As soon as a care home worker catches it on the bus she has to catch to get to work, the whole strategy crumbles. There’s a reason no country has used this strategy without also putting in measures to reduce the spread in the wider community. It wouldn’t work.
X
I think it could work given that people who work from home, do this. I actually feel sorry for people who stay at home with government wages. It’s fine for now, but I really fear that employers will start making people redundant. This really upsets me. From one tragedy (covid) to another (lack of money for living) 😩

if in the future there is reinfection on a large scale because large numbers are not isolating now then govmt action would be required again.

While those ignoring lockdown will contribute to this..I would think even if every person in the country followed the rules..a large scale infection could fairly easily start again..because a large amunt of the country still have not had it, and all it takes realistically is one or two infected people in an area and given a few weeks or so, the large clusters will start again given how infectious this is? Not an expert mind, but from reading a bloody lot of what doctors and scientists are saying, this is what makes most sense to me.

But people who work from home are presumably able to feed themselves, bathe themselves, take themselves to the toilet etc. If you take one of my family members, who hasn’t walked, talked, fed himself or been to the toilet in a decade, how do you possibly isolate him in the same way that you’d isolate a healthy person who works from home? People have to go in and out of his house, if they don’t he would die of dehydration within a few days. Unless you isolate all of the carers, and all of their families there is always a risk of infection. The more widespread the virus is in the wider population, the greater that risk gets.

@oakmaiden they are not using a 1% mortality rate. They are using a 0.1% mortality rate.

USA: population 340m. 65% will catch it before it is no longer able to spread. That is 221m people. Death rate 0.1%. Deaths c. 200,000 which is what they are predicting.

UK: population 65m. 65% will catch it. That is 42m people. Death rate 0.1%. Deaths c. 40,000

Uk numbers will be similar to Italy who are a third of the way there. Also Spain who is a quarter of the way there.

Let’s see but that feels about right based on the rate things are going in Southern Europe.

At least a week too late

@Lweji the reason these cases (the 14 year old) are in the media is because they are very much exceptions and outliers. They are utterly tragic and scare me a lot. But I think it is dangerous that the media keeps reporting them because they are scaring people too much given how rare they are and they are making some of the people who are most at risk become more laissez-faire. Oh well we can all get it anyway.

Professor Neil Ferguson on R4 this morning says around 2 to 3% of the UK have had CV19 already, @ 2% thats 1.3m, with 1200 deaths, thats around 0.1% mortality rate.

FFS! That implies that everyone who currently has it will survive! Given it takes 3-4 weeks between infection and death, your 0.1% “mortality rate” is clearly utter nonsense.

It makes as much sense as saying that a school’s exam pass rate is just 10%, because only 10% of the school’s pupils passed, whilst failing to note that most of them are in years 7 to 10!

@Bool

No, you analysis assumes they are expecting herd immunity to develop.... If they expected that to happen, they’d need to let it rip through the population by winter... the UK and others have moved away from that scenario, and are looking to suppress it whilst they find a way to manage it better/vaccinate for it.

@derbygerbil I am a bit lost in what is wrong. If 1.3m have had it already and we have 1200 deaths then that is a 0.1% death rate. This is current not predicted

@Derbygerbil herd immunity WILL develop. It is not a strategy it is the outcome of what will happen with no vaccine naturally. The reason for lockdown is to let that happen very very slowly so we don’t overwhelm the health service.

@Derbygerbil the only way to avoid herd immunity is to

• develop a vaccine and get immunity that way (will be at least 12 months)
• lock everyone away completely until you get a vaccine (not possible)
• don’t let anyone into your country (or if they do force them to self isolate for 14 days) and test and monitor hard until you have developed a vaccine (see S Korea)
• don’t let anyone into your country from outside, wear masks, check temperatures, don’t let over 65 year olds into public transport and generally live in fear until a vaccine (China)

If 1.3m have had it already

I think wording is all important... Does “have had it” mean have had it and progressed to an outcome (either death or recovery) or does it mean have been infected.

I’m thinking the latter, as if 2-3 million have had it and recovered, it means 10s of millions actually have the infection now, given the significant uptick in cases coming into hospital.

@Bool

And we will be exercising significant social distancing for the foreseeable future to stop the 40 million of us contracting it by winter. We can’t generate herd immunity if we lock ourselves away, or even if we tentatively emerge at times when things are more under control.

The reason for lockdown is to let that happen very very slowly so we don’t overwhelm the health service.

But for 40 million of us to get it by winter, we need to be passing it around!

I’m not for a moment suggesting we do that... we’d be on course for hundreds of thousands of deaths if we did.

@Derbygerbil yes I get what you are saying. But Italy is currently at a death rate that suggests over 10m have got it. And it is still going up a lot. So lockdown needs to be a lot stronger than it is. If Italy already has 10,000 deaths in 3 weeks (a slow start) then it will get to 40,000 deaths and herd immunity at this rate by around July. Long before a vaccine.

Probably even before July.

40,000 deaths is not the point of herd immunity. 400,000 is a closer estimate. Your 0.1% death rate is plucked from thin air and doesn’t match what any scientists I’ve seen are saying.

No... about 2-months too late and pussy footed around. If we had gone hardcore straight away we would be out of it now...

You are spot on..I've had this very conversation with others..... almost verbatim.

If 1.3m have had it already and we have 1200 deaths then that is a 0.1% death rate

Except that of your purported 1.3m who have had or currently have it, you have to look two weeks into the the future to see how many will die. Looking at when Italy had 1400 dead, two weeks later they had over 10,000 dead. So getting on for 1%.

I don’t think the government took it seriously when warned of the threat in January. If they had, they could have ordered tests, tested everyone and isolating those who were positive. Then there would have been no need for a lockdown (Singapore and South Korea have done this.) As usual the problem is Tories, and if no tests were available we should have had lockdown at least a week earlier. If you ask those who are grieving loved ones I bet they would agree.

I don’t believe for a moment we will see the death rate significantly higher than it would normally be at this time of the year. I suspect a huge storm in a teacup. I’m keeping a close eye on the Office of National Statistics website to be proven right.