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?

Look ok fine. I give up. Let’s see how many are dead in the uk but I doubt it will be 400,000

*you don't need to answer I mean

It was explained that if you took the current amount of deaths and multiplied it by 100 (using a ... you guessed it.... 1% IFR) you would get the amount of cases that were originally infected 10-15 days previously. If you then multiplied that figure by 10 again (a very conservative estimate) you would get the number of cases we had at present.

It's a very rough and ready estimation.

Then if you look at the death rates of those nations that are testing widely they are between 0.1% and 1%.
0.3% was the lowest.
Only one other was below 1%.
And that's counting cases now, not from 2 weeks ago.
The rate is NOT as low as you claim. No expert is saying that it is.

@liberoncolours have you seen what measures the Korean government are taking to suppress this virus? Do you know what they are doing? They are making everyone that enters the country self isolate for 14 days. Sign up to a central data base and sign in every day with their symptoms.

@Bool - the figures hopefully will be well under 400,000. That's because we have locked down before 40,000,000 people were infected.

Let’s see how many are dead in the uk but I doubt it will be 400,000

I doubt it too, because there are containment measures in place.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-might-still-be-key-in-the-fight-against-coronavirus

This expert is saying it will be 0.05%. But hey. Off goes the positive person.

Given Bool claims to be an intelligent, well educated person, and given how clearly unjustified their figures are, I am left to conclude that either they are not as intelligent as they claim, or they know perfectly well they are wrong and have some other agenda. I can't see a third option.

What I do strongly believe is that they will be all over this forum tomorrow on other threads, blithely quoting the same made up 0.1% figure.

Containment measures ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE LONG TERM..

Well of course it won't be 400k - we're on lockdown. Left alone, with no restrictions at all, and the IC modelling suggested 500k dead, with 60% of the population having had it. That's a 1% death rate.

@titchy ok I give up. Let’s all hide away until we get a vaccine.

Bool I see what you are saying. The experts have always questioned how many have had it and we don’t know.

Why have the figures been revised to be lower than 20k? It’s not because they intend to suppress until a vaccine is it? The only measure is to suppress so we don’t overwhelm the NHS.

Nellodee can I ask what percentage of the population do you think will have had CV by the time we have the vaccine?

I just don't understand why you think the natural death rate is 0.1% - really given that every country almost is significantly isolating its population and thus reducing the rate.

People have explained the x 1000 thing to you, you've read the IC modelling, you have a STEM degree, you know that death rates have to be measured with no interventions - why don't you understand this!!!!

@marshabradyo ah thank you. Yes I am worried that this new 20,000 figure is too low. I am sure it will be double that. Italy is already at 12,000 and it hasn’t gone south yet. I am trying to stay positive that there is a big bottom of the iceberg.

@titchy and I don’t understand why you cannot understand that there is a humungous number of people that have mild or zero symptoms that have not been tested and yet have had it or have it and thus increase the denominator of the equation.

Titchy what percentage of the population do you think will have had CV by the time we have a vaccine?

@Bool

the evidence from China was that 86% of people had this with ZERO symptoms

I believe they actually found that 86% of cases were undocumented, not symptom-less.

And by the way the % death rate doesn’t decrease by isolation! The spread of it does. It slows it down. The % death rate stays the same. Sigh

Bool, your expert is an emergency doctor, not an expert. He quoted the 0.05% from a non scientific, not peer reviewed article, by someone who takes mortality from a ship and transplants to the population of the US.
I'm sure even you can see the flaws in that.

@oakmaiden ok I give up. Even 86% would mean a death rate far lower than 0.1% but keep scaremongering

Your expert bases their opinion on an IFR on the Diamond Princess of 1.0%

There was actually a CFR of 2.3%, giving an IFR of 1.3% across all age categories. This already assumes a huge amount of undetected cases, so there is no need to lower it further due to the "unseen iceberg" effect.

They also assumed that because there were zero deaths amongst the under 70s on the Diamond Princess, that the IFR amongst the under 70 was 0. This is clearly a huge error to make, particularly given the small numbers present in this age category on the ship.

The zero deaths in these age categories is consistent with the predictions of IFRs below 0.5% for these age categories, but not zero.

www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256

Compare and contrast the above.

I think they left it too late. We knew what was going to happen by watching Italy and Spain. We sat & thought it would affect us so now we have unnecessary deaths and far too much pressure in the NHS. Our government should have been more prepared for this, they knew it was coming. The one good thing that will come from this is that the torys have had to become socialists & drop their neoliberal agenda.

If people accept suppression can only be in place for so long, to ensure NHS isn’t overwhelmed, then what is stopping us getting to 60% by the time we have a vaccine?

And by the way the % death rate doesn’t decrease by isolation! The spread of it does. It slows it down. The % death rate stays the same.

You are quite right. The key is when they die.
But hopefully we'll have the 400 000 over several years. Even one year would be better than one month. Or, in all likelihood, well have better treatments and a decent vaccine to stop it spreading.

Would you bet your life on 0.1%?