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 needed to take measures a week earlier.

The virus is out of control in London and parts of Wales. Had we not lost a week, the death toll would be significantly reduced and we would be out of our lock down two to three weeks earlier.

@Bool

I’m sorry, I wrote in haste. I’m sorry your DH’s been so ill. I hope he’s fully better soon.

Perhaps the revised figure is Imperial using suppression until vaccine. Can’t see how that is possible. They do cite antibody test though.

@Derbygerbil and I appreciate the debate. I really do. I am. It relaxed in any way. My ex is Italian. His family are there. It is awful. My DH nearly died this weekend. I have had a lot of colleagues and friends in London who had had it. I am trying to calm people. The death rate will be lower because there are a lot of people that have it with mild symptoms or symptomless. If I know lots of people like that then it will be prevalent. This is awful. Truly awful. We must all slow the progress but progress it will. Be mindful of who is exposed.

*not not .It

@MarshaBradyo

I cannot decipher from that report what percentage they expect will have it before a vaccine.

They say it depends on the R0 number. For R0 2-4 her immunity is apparently 50-75%. Apparently the R0 number changes depending on social conditions (the amount people are interacting) and was calculated to be between 2-4 while the epidemic was uncontrolled, and below 1 when the country was in lockdown.

They also say the reckon the initial Reproduction number (which I assume is the R0) is estimated to have been 3.87 (with a fair degree of uncertainty) initially across all countries, and give estimated R0 numbers for Sweden (2.6) and Norway (0.97).

They also point out that isolation = low R0 = slower infection rate = slower reaching herd immunity. Also that with small numbers of the populations having already been affected you can expect the R0 to rise on relaxation of restrictions, with all the effects that implies.

Oakmaiden that is very interesting. Sorry to ask another question but - They don’t say given the likelihood of a vaccine at x time we expect x % of the population to have it. Because their numbers are so low now, is it because they expect we will be no where near herd immunity figure when we get the vaccine?

(It’s messing with my mind but I want to understand their new projection)

It could just be a report to answer the question does suppression work? In which case they’ve said yes by x amount. What we do next given it is unlikely we can suppress until a vaccine is another thing. So it does all come down to the antibody test.

I can't see any reference to expected timescales regarding vaccines in the paper (I searched the word "vaccine") nor a long term forecast. I suspect this is because they just don't know - either when the vaccine will be available or at what point countries might relax/reinforce restrictions. They seem to be mostly focused on the effect that the restrictions has had: for example the estimate that in the UK over 50 deaths have been prevented as of 28th, and 370 as of tomorrow. They think 38,000 deaths have been prevented by Italy's lockdown. That is a lot.

Yes I think that is the focus too.
Ok we may lift restrictions a bit but not entirely on and off until vaccine
Antibody test could help
Otherwise if we reach herd immunity by then and the number of deaths is lower then the death rate % must be too

Yeah. Of course, by then it will all be entirely academic.

I worry about countries with no real medical infrastructure though.

@Oakmaiden me too :-(. Also nations with a lot of underlying health problems. (Obesity and diabetes). Usa I love you but this will not be easy. 200,000 deaths is based on an averagely healthy population

We’ll actually be able to tell if you’re right about the 0.1% very soon.
Lombardy has a population of 10milliom and has had 6,800 deaths so far, if your maths is correct then Lombardy has already reached 68% infection.

If the death rate is 0.1% then deaths in Lombardy will slow to almost 0 in the next day or two. If they continue to rise by 100s each day then either the death rate is higher than 0.1% or you need a lot more than 60% of the population infected to achieve herd immunity.

Looking at UK deaths over the next couple of weeks won’t tell you whether the death rate is 0.1 or 1%, the people who will die in the next few weeks are already infected. If the death rate is 0.1% then we have to assume ten times more people are infected than if it’s 0.1% (calculated from the deaths we’ve had so far) which will give the same number of deaths.

Germany introducing mass testing (100k to 500k I’ve seen two figures) for antibodies in next week or so, so that will be a good indication. If it goes well get an immunity certificate to go back to work.

@SabineSchmetterling yep you are right. How do we get the death rate for Lombardy and not total Italy. Lombardy is likely to be slightly higher than average because it has a higher than average elderly population. But it certainly won’t go up to 100,000 deaths - 1%. I also think usa will be higher than average because of underlying health issues. But I am sure on average death rate will settle out at about 0.1%

@MarshaBradyo yes they have always said that the antibody test will be a game changer. I have had a mild cough and nothing else. Have had lots of friends who have had it and now my DH (who is getting better by the day :-). I am pretty sure I have had it. Also the DH of my girlfriend who had it very badly is symptomless along with her son. The antibody test will be very useful.

Anecdotally the number of people who have thought they’d had it very mildly, (or have mistakenly thought they’d had it if course) does feel higher than 2.7%

If people think about people they know how have they found it?

So yes Bool maybe so.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21H2GF

Lombardy does have an older population than the UK, they do also have very good healthcare provision though.

Does anyone think 100k in Lombardy could happen? Are they slowing already?

And yes lockdown will be slowing it too. But that figure is very high.

But it certainly won’t go up to 100,000 deaths - 1%

This presupposes that most people in Lombardy have been infected. If the figure is lower, say 10%, then it could easily be 1%+. The antibody test is the only thing that will tell us one way or another.

If you are right, it also means that the lock down in Lombardy was pointless as it was already very close to reaching herd immunity levels. This doesn’t seem consistent with the trajectory of symptomatic cases.

@SabineSchmetterling they have the highest pollution levels in Europe and an older population so even though the average may end up 0.1% I wouldn’t be surprised if Lombardy was slightly higher but no where near 100,000 deaths. Also they weren’t ready. They were taken by surprise so didn’t isolate their elderly quickly enough and hospitals were overwhelmed. I have family in Milan so know this. Anyway we will start to get the real numbers in indeed.

@Derbygerbil are you still on the 1% death rate route? I sincerely hope that is not right.

ICL produced two models. The first was grossly flawed and used to drive the herd immunity, carry on as normal plan. They used the wrong data on hospitalization times. After more data emerged from Wuhan and Italy they updated their model and the government shifted gear.

For herd immunity you need 60-70% of the population to go through infection, recovery and known immunity. For people to have a good chance of rapid recovery they need to be young with no underlying conditions and there needs to be hospital space available to accommodate them if needed. Clearly 60-70% of the population is not young with no underlying health conditions and if you factor in hospital beds etc then you see that there is a bit of an issue here. Flattening the curve removes the hospital bed issue so that 60-70% of the population can get it, be cared for, recover and (hopefully) have some immunity.

Not flattening the curve means that you risk overloading the system so even your grand idea of herd immunity is scuppered.

What other countries are trying to do is slow it down so that scientists have time to gather and analyse data (to prevent another ICL debacle). It also buys time to test treatments etc.

I am currently in a country with pretty strict measures in place. Our daily numbers of new cases have been pretty consistent for the past week. Everyone is relieved - certainly not angry or threatening to riot. We've been given a tentative date for some restrictions being lifted. We will try it and see what happens. If numbers jump again we will go back to our current situation.

Get used to it. This is the new norm for the next year or so. Unless the UK decides thousands dying is OK and then you'll be out of it sooner than the rest of us. But at what cost?

Reading some of these responses reminds me of all the kids in high school maths classes when faced with percentages or exponents or logarithmic scales complaining and moaning "when are we ever going to use this stuff in real life?!". Maths teachers the world over rejoice - here is your answer.