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?

No, it's not sensationalism. You don't like it. Big difference.

No one has called for the vulnerable to be infected and take their chances but you have accused people of that - that is why i posted.

No I haven't. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm glad you think we should keep perspective. That's always good, provided you're not using it as a way to downplay an enormous loss of life. You haven't seen the final numbers for this, you know.

@1000atfc5423 why are my estimates dangerous? This is a small thread on mumsnet.

I am only at the end of page 1 (and there are currently 31 pages altogether), there is no way I can wade through another 30 pages, so for anyone who has, this is my half penny's worth:
My DH and I were discussing this the other day (we are both in our 60's with underlying health problems), and we agreed that we can hopefully manage 18 to 24 months of severe restrictions, but any longer than that, and we are not sure that just hanging on to life for the sake of it, at our ages, would be worth it. To never be able to go for drives into the countryside, and then walk in nature; to never be able to pop into a quaint tea house for a cuppa and cake; to never be able to watch and listen to the rolling ocean; to never be able to listen to live music; and most importantly, to never be able to hug our fast growing grandchildren and spend time with them, just wouldn't be worth any safety it might confer to us. Having said that, to make sure that our grandchildren, and your children do have a safe place to grow up in, we will keep ourselves quarantined for the rest of our lives, if necessary. Let us all hope, and do our best to help this nightmare be over as soon as reasonably possible. Good health everyone.

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

This hits the nail on the head!

@Bool - 1% mortality rate is correct. Stop denying the numbers.

DM reporting Germany has sadly hit a 1% death rate in Germany - and it has handled the crisis the best in Europe!

If you want to be positive stop denying the numbers and put that Oxford education to use by coming up with useful suggestions.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8175227/Germany-suffers-biggest-daily-jump-coronavirus-deaths-second-day-row.html

For those that believe herding works then you are right.It makes sense that by simply catching it then creates an immunity.This was the government's strategy initially.However his scientists pointed out that this could result in approximately 250.000 deaths which is why they changed their strategy.Slow the curve,protect the vulnerable and allow the NHS time to cope with severe cases.Doing this had a predicted death rate of 20,000.Spain lockdown happened six weeks after its first 100 cases,Italy eight France eight and UK ten weeks.Too early??? Only time will tell

@busyhonestchildcarer yes but herd immunity will still be the outcome of at this. That part hasn’t changed. They also ALWAYS said they wanted to flatten the curve by introducing slowdown measures via lockdown. So that never changed either. What changed was they decided to lock down sooner than planned.

*all not at

It makes me laugh still that people are calling herd immunity a strategy which was abandoned. Herd immunity is not a strategy. It is the natural outcome of what will happen as a virus spreads OR if a vaccine is found. Once immunity gets to 65% of the population EITHER by natural spread or by man made vaccine then transmission will grind to a halt. Issue is we don’t have a vaccine. So herd immunity will happen naturally. It is not an abandoned strategy. What they are doing is making sure the 65% don’t all get it in one very short period and overwhelm the NHS.

Bool, I paraphrase, but this is what Prof Stephen Powis explained in the press briefing yesterday when asked about R0.

"Yes, if you have one person infecting two others, then the virus spreads. But if you have two people and they only infect one other person between them, then the virus dies out. That is what we are aiming for."

Not herd immunity. Suppression. That is the current stated aim.

Nobody is going for supression because pretty much all the countries have it and they have different strategies, if any at all. Even in Europe, countries differ markedly.
The aim to reduce is not supression, not in the short or medium term, but lowering the numbers.
It's not quite the herd immunity plan either. It's a delay strategy, aiming to keep numbers down, so that the vulnerable can actually have a low risk of infection and a better chance to access good health care. Hopefully, at least, until there's a vaccine, treatment or both.

The R0 explanation is to lower numbers. It's not possible to quarantine the entire world for 15 days or more at the same time

@bool numbers of dying/critically ill in Paris now outnumbering beds. Patients being transferred to Regions. Chief Med Officer Dr Rishi Desai loses his shit on fox news. Listen to what he is saying about lockdown and Korea. He is saying this will go on for as long as lockdown is voluntary. He has said USA (and implicitly other govmts) should have listened to the Asian leading scientists and doctors - who after all went through this wtih SARS and have a good undersatnding of the threat of zoological leap - months ago.

not sure why i gave regions a capital letter.

Allowing herd immunity to become established through 'a lot of deaths' (never thought I'd quote Trump) was indeed one component of a hastily abandoned strategy-sadly not surprising from this Machiavellian government.

Rather unfortunate that any aspect of this would make you laugh.

Abandoned when the modelling showed (ie made it impossible to continue ignoring) just how many deaths that would be.

@liberoncolours why are you addressing your post to me? Nobody, not least me, is saying we shouldn’t lockdown to slow this down.

Herd immunity is a completely different concept to lockdown and slowdown. But I have said this many times now so give up honestly.

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

That’s a bit like saying “it’s only the curtains that are on fire, they don’t cost much to replace.”

It’s not what CV is doing now that’s the real issue (though obviously all deaths are tragic) but the impact of letting the CV fire burn unimpeded. 500 deaths today becomes 2,000 a day in a fortnight, and 10,000 a day in a month!

Bool You may not be aware of how it was referred to in the weekend before the lockdown and linked with justifying a delayed lockdown. But I give up too, no interest in convincing anyone.

@0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h no I must have missed that.

500 deaths today becomes 2,000 a day in a fortnight

That's conservative.
At a 20% increase, and case numbers unchecked increase by 30%, per day, it only takes 8 days to get to 2000.

If I am not mistaken, herd immunity, as in letting it go unchecked, was one of the options discussed.
I suppose it was widely put in the news as "the strategy" that the government was following because their stance, at the time, was not much more than letting it do its worst, just shielding the vulnerable, Boris knows (or not) how.

That's why I try not to call it a "strategy" but something else. A plan? An option?

www.technologyreview.com/f/615369/uk-dropping-coronavirus-herd-immunity-strategy-250000-dead/

No @lweji herd immunity is not about letting a virus spread unchecked! Herd immunity is what happens when a population gets enough immunity to stop it spreading. The % of the population that needs to become immune to stop it spreading is determined by the contagiousness of that virus. So for measles we need 95% of population immune to stop the spread as it is so contagious. For Covid-19 the estimates are that around 65% of the population need to be immune to stop the spread.

Immunity can come in two ways.

1. Through a vaccination programme

1. Through people getting the virus which then renders them immune

Herd immunity will happen naturally anyway. It just will.

Herd immunity is NOT about the rate or the speed at which this happens.

Lockdown (or not) is about slowing the spread so that the NHS can cope. It is an entirely different concept to herd immunity.