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?

It wasn't even shielding the vulnerable. Just letting the virus rip through the community.

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

Hopefully the initial actions taken (handwashing, stay at home if ill, social distancing) will slow the rate a bit. Probably not enough but they should make some difference.

I am sorry but you are complete confusing immunity levels with the speed at which it happens. Please they are different concepts. Give it a year and you will maybe understand when the world all achieves herd immunity naturally. It’s nature. It’s not a plan or a strategy or an approach.

@alloutoffucks no you are wrong. Herd immunity is NOT about how fast a virus spreads

If the aim is for most to get it, a lot of people will die.

@alloutoffucks nobody’s ‘aim’ is for most people to get it. This is nature and biology. This virus will simply spread until 65% get it and then stop it’s spread.

It just WILL.

It just will if nothing is done to stop it.

There was another scientist on R4 today saying they same, two ends - vaccine or 65%

I always missed the initial announcement from govt saying it would just let it run though.

It will just happen. It’s nature. My son did a pandemic event at school last year and gets it. We just need it to slow down dramatically (lockdown) so we can cope and shield the most vulnerable rim it.

*from

@alloutoffucks you can’t stop it!!!! Unless 65% have it - either through a vaccine or natural immunity.

@MarshaBradyo yes I missed that announcement too!!!!!

I think they should have done it earlier and started testing much much earlier.

It has not ripped through the whole of China. You stop it until there is a vaccine.

It makes me laugh still that people are calling herd immunity a strategy which was abandoned

I think you're confusing how people are using the word strategy - the Governments original strategy was to let the virus do its thing until we had reached herd immunity. No one I don't think is saying that they would make the virus spread in a particular way to gain herd immunity that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

I'm sure everyone acknowledges that left alone once 65% of the population would get it and then it spreads no more.

Unfortunately Imperial modelled that and got half a mill dead (that 1% death rate you disagree with ) so they quickly changed to lockdown as the strategy as it reduces the R0.

@alloutoffucks are you back again talking nonsense 🙄

Do you expect everyone to stay in lockdown until there is a vaccine, that is at the earliest 18 months away?

@Bool

Thank you so much for that explanation about herd immunity. What would I do without it?

We're using shorthand here. What the government proposed initially under the umbrella "we're going for herd immunity" was letting it go unchecked, with no control measures other than trying somehow to shield the vulnerable, until the magical 60% was achieved.

In full, it would be: we're going to let this run its course, while doing close to fuck all, and wait until it's no longer a problem because herd immunity has been achieved then, and we'll be so clever because we won't have a problem soon, rather than it lasting months as in other countries.

Of course, the problem with that "strategy" being the huge numbers that would require hospital stay, and the dead, and the little issue of trying to shield the vulnerable while 60% of the remaining population, and thus, more or less 60% of their carers gets infected.

Also, @Bool you seem to have missed a lot about the UK's 2nd response.

The first response, btw, was to test and track, which worked fairly well, until tests became difficult to come by and their use became selective (2nd response).

"Herd immunity" "strategy" that is well summarised here.

Sir Richard Wharton: “In stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby: “Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.”

Sir Richard Wharton: “In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby: “Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.”

Which works well for the Foreign Office, but less so with internal issues.

No, too late if anything and we’re beginning to see the result now.

@lweji What the government proposed initially under the umbrella "we're going for herd immunity" was letting it go unchecked, with no control measures other than trying somehow to shield the vulnerable, until the magical 60% was achieved.

I really completely missed this. The first briefing I saw was the chief science officer with a whiteboard clearly showing a graph illustrating what flattening of the curve means - to make sure we don’t overwhelm the NHS. I didn’t conclude from that that what he REALLY meant is to NOT do that and let it go unchecked. But please enlighten me with the source of that.

Flatten the curve and increase capacity of the NHS has always been the strategy. That is complete opposite to let it run unchecked. Again both of these are still consistent with herd immunity which is a different concept.

It’s so funny to see how fake news spreads honestly

I remember Sir Patrick mentioning herd immunity which went down like a lead balloon but I don’t remember the just let it run.