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?

@justlliloleme I don’t know where you are getting the info that the NHS is completely overwhelmed yet. As far as I can see they are doing the most amazing job. The president on Sunday said the hospitals are not full yet. I personally think that what is happening in the uk is amazing. The Netherlands (where my DH is) is full and not building 4000 bed hospitals. I applaud the nhs and all the workers and helpers who are building our capacity.

Lweji how much do you think we can slow it down by before vaccine?

This expert is saying it will be 0.05%.

That is not what he says at all. He says that ONE professor has speculated in could be as low as 0.05%. If you then look at that professors work, he bases all his data on the Diamond Princess cases and extrapolates them to America, and then says that based on this the number death rate could be between 0.05% and 1%.

Also, I did explain to you (yesterday) that you have misunderstood how they work out the 1 death = 1000 cases data, but apparently that doesn't fit your narrative so you just ignored it.

@Lweji I really believe death rate is 0.1% not 1%. There is an enormous bottom to this iceberg that is going undetected. Best of luck and I am really only trying to calm people x

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

I don't know. I don't know when a vaccine will be available. I'm just going by the IC modelling which suggested if we did nothing 60% of the population would get it (but no more cos probably herd immunity) and 1% of those would die - which is the 400,000 figure. IF WE DID NOTHING.

The Diamond Princess as a closed environment is probably the best data we've got and gives us over 1%, although an older population. Although probably too small a population to be certain.

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.

This is sort of true - as long as the health system is working efficiently. The second it becomes overburdened you start seeing unnecessary deaths which push the fatality rate up.

I am really only trying to calm people

If a tsunami is coming and you try to calm people by saying it's a wave 10x smaller than it is, how exactly do you think that helps?

Have IC stated that it won’t be 60% who get it? What is the percentage in their current projections which are far lower?

@titchy. Ok respect. You have a 1% death rate. I have a 0.1% death rate. Maybe you are right. I sincerely hope (and believe) you are wrong. Because this is going to spread everywhere before the vaccine is introduced. And if we lock down for 12 months we will all be in financial ruin anyway. Really the best of luck x

I don’t know where you are getting the info that the NHS is completely overwhelmed yet.

One in ten hospital beds tonight are for CV patients. Cancer screening cancelled. London has pretty much run out of ICU beds. If the NHS wasn't overwhelmed they wouldn't be building Nightingale hospitals, asking for 250k volunteers and employing 20,000 retired doctors and nurses. The NHS is on its knees.

@Oakmaiden correct. And they why (hopefully) we are all isolating to slow this down.

The second it becomes overburdened you start seeing unnecessary deaths which push the fatality rate up.

Yes, there's that too.
When you get about 10% of known cases in ICU, imagine only 10% of those being able to access ICU.

You have a 1% death rate. I have a 0.1% death rate

I have a lower estimate of 1%, based on data.
You have 0.1% based on wishful thinking and a vague memory of someone talking.

@titchy I think we should all be staying positive that our amazing nhs is coping. Yes it’s a shitshow. Nobody wanted this. But they are coping. And they need our support. I am volunteering. I am helping the elderly on my street. I am working full time and I have kids to look after with a DH in another country completely Ill with Covid. We need to stay positive.

The whole point is to stop the overburden not suppress completely until there’s a vaccine.

Imperial must have a percentage in the model for how many, still at 60% I imagine.

@MarshaBradyo here are my back of a beermat calculations.

The first scenario is if we go with the whole "we're not trying to stop this disease in its tracks, just all catch it at a rate the NHS can cope with." (Sorry, I couldn't think of a catchier description).

We started out with 4,000 ICU beds. Each patient needing critical care takes up a bed for an average of 8 days. Let's optimistically say they can treat 50 people in a year.

Let's be optimistic again and say that we can ramp up that provision to 20,000 ICU beds (hopefully these new CPAP machines being developed by Ferrari can help with that).

So, we have the capability to treat 1,000,000 people in a year.

5% of infected people require ICU care. So, we can multiply that (very optimistic) figure by 20 to see how many people the NHS can cope with being infected. That gives us 20,000,000 people. Of course, we won't immediately have that capacity, so let's bring that down a bit to say... 15,000,000 people.

That's a very optimistic figure, based on us having a vaccine within a year. It would still result in a large amount of deaths.

The alternative scenario is that we somehow manage to get the figures right down to near zero, control this completely within the country, test massively, contact trace rigorously and start heavily quarantining people coming into the country.

If that was the case, we might keep cases under a million in total with a massive reduction in deaths.

Note: These figures are all totally back of a beer mat. Individual parts, like the 5% needing ICU, the 8 days in ICU and the 4000 ICU beds initially are verifiable, but the figure of increased capacity being 20,000 is just me making it up.

Have IC stated that it won’t be 60% who get it? What is the percentage in their current projections which are far lower?

The 60% is based the R0 factor which is the number of people one person will infect (about 3 for CV, 15 for measles). 60% of a population having it will give herd immunity (assuming you can develop immunity and it doesn't mutate etc), so it won't infect any further, other than odd cases. Clearly with a 1% fatality rate that's a lot of dead, hence the lockdown. I posted the 'do nothing vs lockdown' graph somewhere - beware the winter surge...

If there is this huge iceberg below the surface and millions of people already have CV in the U.K. (a 0.1% death rate would suggest around 10 million are infected already) why are so many of the tests on people hospitalised with symptoms still negative? Why aren’t more tests coming back positive?

@SabineSchmetterling because the vast majority of people with symptoms don’t need to be in hospital

A friend of mine had her possibly life saving bone marrow transplant cancelled. She probably missed her window. Because of coronavirus.

Hospitals have been diverting or cancelling non emergency surgeries and treatments. To have space for covid patients.

Hospitals usually run at close to capacity, for the sake of efficiency and costs. The backlog for important but not life threatening conditions will be huge.

Nellodee that’s interesting thanks for doing that!

Have Imperial projected a percentage? I need to find the latest link don’t I

@SabineSchmetterling and nobody is saying millions in the uk have had it. 1000 deaths = 1m have had it or got it. Not millions.

Lockdown is to stop overwhelming NHS then they release a bit rather than sustain until vaccine. Economically we can’t go on that long. So tap flows then is turned off.

Ok I’ll stop asking re % and have a look

I think we should all be staying positive that our amazing nhs is coping.

It will if the number of infected stays low enough. Not because of your wishful thinking.

1000 people having it means 1m have got it with a 0.1% death rate