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 don’t get the rudeness either. No one can be absolutely sure. Even Chris Whitty says there are some unknowns.

@MadMadaMim I didn’t miss your sarcasm. I was talking about you saying that herd immunity was in any way a ‘plan’. The plan was always to flatten the curve to stop overwhelming the NHS. We are just debating whether we thought the lockdown and slowdown happened too early, too late or just right.

No not too early. Their original analysis suggested we had longer, they were thinking 2-3 weeks, then they revised things sharpish using the Italian data for their modelling which suggested we had far, far less time.

Germany are going to be letting people who have had it go back to work soon. Apparently they have the antibody tests. That is going to be interesting how they manage that without people who haven’t had it also breaking the lockdown.

@Bool - again, thanks for explaining what I already said understand.

The 'plan' was me ruined, as I said, sarcastically. It was never a plan and even if it had been, it is not a plan that would have worked for this situation IMO.

And I understand the curve flattening etc.

@Gin96 I haven't said I'm right about anything. Please don't read things that aren't there. Or at least don't attribute them to people who didn't say or infer those things you read rabt aren't there.

And for clarity - I'm not being rude. I'm exasperated by the never ending comments, discussions etc in SM on this. We is t need to understand it all. We idnt even need tk agree with it. We just need to accept it and do as we're told. And whatever we think - the tens and tens of posts and pleas from key wimeders and NHS Staff should be enough of a motivator to just get on with it.

And I repeat, IMO (opinion - no lcsim to whether I'm right or not) the lock down came too late, if anything.

I am sticking to the rules, my husband is high risk. I think the Uk brought in lockdown at the right time and did it gradually. I’m glad I live here, not in India who had 4 hours to organise themselves for a 21 day lockdown, or Hungary where your rights are slowly corroding away. We’re lucky the government have put in place financial safety nets, which I know won’t cover everyone. So much bashing of how the UK have handled this, you need to open your eyes, other countries including Germany haven’t handled this perfectly either.

@MadMadaMim if you are sick of these discussions then why are you here? You don’t have to click into the Coronavirus section of mumsnet and get exasperated.

And why are you thinking none of us are accepting this? We are all in lockdown along with you I hope.

@Gin96 uffff I agree. People don’t know how lucky they are to live in this country. Of course it’s not perfect but all the bashing thinking others are doing everything so much better. And yes I have lived and worked in others.

@madmadamin as said herd immunity is not a plan. It will happen naturally anyway as the virus spreads. We are just trying to get it to happen as sloooooowly as possible. It is what is happening everywhere at the moment until a vaccine comes along.

They even moaned about what they were receiving in food boxes and how they weren’t individually asked what they wanted before it was sent out 🙄 Indian families would’ve been so grateful to receive this food, when did everyone get so entitled in this country 😔

They acted too late. Boris was trying to do the right thing but advice was slow and at times confusing and still is. Plus people are ignoring what they are being told and don’t seem to believe that this virus is a killer. I’ve just been to my surgery for important medication and have passed people with children heading to the park with footballs to play. What does it take for these people to realise that this is no joke and they should do as ordered. They are putting their own children nd others at risk. Idiots all of them.

@libbee49 they are probably doing their one piece of exercise for the day. As allowed.

But if you don't lock down while the NHS is coping... Then you lock down when it is already struggling knowing it's still going to get worse... Which means more people die.

The point of slowing it and staying in is so less people die and doctors aren't forced to refuse people treatment because of lack of space or equipment. It gives scientists a chance to make a vaccine or find a away to prevent it causing serious illness.

If it was left later the NHS would collapse. Even cancer ops would have had to be cancelled (this is still continuing but they have said that if the situation blows up even those will stop).

I don't really understand why there is civil unrest - stay in save lives. OK it isn't what we all dream of doing, just like rationing and pitching in during the war, but this is the current situation and people have to knuckle down and get on with it. Only a selfish spoilt society would start causing unrest in a pandemic. No one has to like the restrictions, we just have to do it and the sooner we do it the sooner things can return to normal

Parks by us have been shut down in the play areas. Police ask if what you are doing is essential - which most activities are not - and you are told to go home. Walking yes, football no.

It was just stated one the press conference by Stephen Powis that the plan is to bring down R0 from 2 to 0.5. This is a clearly stated aim for supression, not elongation.

Someone asked about isolating the Lombardia daily results. Each region publishes its own daily results of both infections and deaths.

31/3 Lombardia
1,047 new cases
(1,154 yesterday)
381 deaths
(458 yesterday)

My son is exercising every day. Some days a bike ride. Another day kicking a ball with his dad. Another day running. Why is kicking a ball not allowed but a walk is? That is your own personal prejudice.

That was in answer to @Libbee49. Am sure you don’t have a teenage boy

Herd immunity through infection of the population (as opposed to a vaccine) is a process of survival of the fittest. The end result might be protection of the remaining vulnerable who have somehow survived - but not before the pathogen has taken out many, many people who simply weren't strong enough to make it.

There is evidence that as long as 20-30 000 years ago, human societies protected the infirm and facilitated their survival. In those days, this was probably very difficult to do and came at cost. There would have been a strong argument that they were a liability in communities that relied on the ability to run from danger and travel distances to forage. Yet there is the evidence to show that people walked more slowly for them, hunted for them, grieved when they passed away.

We like to think we're on an upward ethical trajectory as a global society, placing increasing emphasis on the value of individual lives and their right to protection in a civilised society. Yet the evidence hasn't really been there lately. People with disabilities have struggled to eat in wealthy and poor countries alike. Protections for workers have declined. Women the world over are struggling with issues of slavery, trafficking and discrimination.

I find it hard to believe we care enough collectively to follow through with a lockdown when it really begins to bite. We'll figure those people at risk weren't suited for survival anyway. Which is to ignore that civilisation is about, at it's highest point, surviving together.

If I'm wrong and what we like to believe about ourselves is true, we'll make sacrifices and wait until it's possible for the vulnerable amongst us to receive a vaccine.

Herd immunity through infection of the population (as opposed to a vaccine) is a process of survival of the fittest. The end result might be protection of the remaining vulnerable who have somehow survived - but not before the pathogen has taken out many, many people who simply weren't strong enough to make it.

this is blatant sensationalism - why are you trying to stir up people's emotions by spreading misinformation and hate-mongering! If you isolate the weak and then let infection run through the rest, that is a totally different concept than letting the infection run through the whole population. No one has ever said just do nothing and let everyone get infected.

(And I acknowledge the doubts some have raised about if it's possible to strictly isolate the vulnerable, but that is not the issue I am raising here.)

There is no doubt that there are 'players' pushing a police state propaganda and false statistics to deliberately undermine containment efforts. No doubt about it its an agenda.
@Bool
Opinion is fine - but no-one wants to hear your made up numbers. Its too bloody dangerous. Stop already !

No, it's not sensationalism. You don't like it. Big difference. No idea who you think I'm trying to stir hate against. I have no such agenda so can't answer your question. A few weeks, a lockdown was seen as a sensationalist suggestion by those who didn't want to do it. Your extreme is another person's necessary. And yes, it actually all hangs on whether vulnerable people can be effectively protected while a pathogen rips through the rest of the community. I think not. I think we don't want to find out afterwards that it was a little optimistic.

I’m not against lockdown, we must keep a prospective, the numbers dying from coronavirus per population are still quite small.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/