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?

The first briefing I saw was the chief science officer with a whiteboard

Then you should have looked at what the first proposed (lack of) measures were.

But, as I posted earlier, what transpired and was given the name "herd immunity strategy" does seem to have been the media running with it, rather than an actual proposal.

What they did propose (isolating the vulnerable/elderly and voluntary isolation with symptoms, with no enforcement or more tests) was akin to letting it run.

You do seem to miss a lot.

@marshabradyo me neither. I think people have complete misunderstood the term ‘herd immunity’ as being ‘let it run’ when Sir Patrick very clearly showed how they wanted to FLATTEN THE CURVE.

@Lweji nope. What I remember was them clearly saying that this was a staged process and they wouldn’t rule out anything. Never did they say they wouldn’t do anything. It was a staged process and they wouldn’t rule out anything.

I think what people are now doing is trying to back justify their complete misunderstanding of ‘herd immunity’

Yes Bool I remember that the staged thing. As much as it feels like an age ago they said we have various things we can use.

@MarshaBradyo exactly. I feel as if I am being gaslit. They always said they would bring measures on in a staged way. They never ruled out any measures. Strategy was always to flatten the curve.

Boris announced that as a policy they would follow herd immunity and then announced that they had shifted their position and decided upon suppression instead of herd immunity, it was reported as a change of tactic. Not that herd immunity wouldn't apply, but that it wouldn't be relied on as a short term measure. That lockdown would in fact be necessary to ensure the flattening of the curve. Let's all hope that there is immunity - it was said by Prof Kim Woo Joo that a woman who had recovered and tested negative then tested positive again a few weeks later. If I am missing the point here, I confess I am not following all the posts .. sorry.

I don't think anyone is gaslighting you bool- I think personally that it is a little difficult to understand what you think at times - because of brevity of posts possibly - hence my posts upthread asking you directly what you thought about specific things! Which weren't answered I don't think but then again I haven't followed the thread religiously since so they may have been - and it doesn't really matter either way. I find some of your posts are confusing, personally. But no intentional gaslighting going on I don't think.

My last post was addressed to you because you had said upthread do NHS staff have a different view? Am genuinely interested. I haven’t heard any saying that they are not coping yet and I know a few working on the front line. Again I am genuinely interested. We all care - my link was a US doctor obviously but I can provide links with NHS doctors showing quite considerable exhaustion and very clearly being very put upon.

Different subject - in relation to S Korea you described it as a police state up thread - you may (or may not!) find this a different perspective:

I’m not trying to be contrary but having googled

‘But on Thursday, at a press conference, Boris Johnson seemingly revealed that the United Kingdom would adopt a different strategy. The government would no longer try to track and trace the contacts of every suspected case, and it would test only people who are admitted to hospitals. In lieu of any major social-distancing measures, Johnson instead offered a suite of soft advice—people with symptoms should stay home; no school trips abroad; people over 70 should avoid cruises.

Read: You’re likely to get the coronavirus

With the peak of the pandemic still weeks away, the time hadn’t come yet for stricter measures, Johnson and his advisers said. They worried about “behavioral fatigue”—if restrictions come into force too early, people could become increasingly uncooperative and less vigilant, just as the outbreak swings into high gear. (As of yesterday, the U.K. has identified 1,391 cases, although thousands more are likely undetected.) And while suppressing the virus through draconian measures might be successful for months, when they lift, the virus will return, said Sir Patrick Vallance, the U.K.’s chief scientific adviser.’

This sounds to me like the fatigue part which is true. It will take it out of us and the economy to be locked down so time it right.
Will link rest

To avoid a second peak in the winter, Vallance said the U.K. would suppress the virus “but not get rid of it completely,” while focusing on protecting vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. In the meantime, other people would get sick. But since the virus causes milder illness in younger age groups, most would recover and subsequently be immune to the virus. This “herd immunity” would reduce transmission in the event of a winter resurgence. On Sky News, Vallance said that “probably about 60 percent” of people would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity.

Which is also true. 60% is required.

But mentioning this was more a PR fault over anything else.

from here The Atlantic

No too late if anything and testing too little

If the correct measures were taken in January we would not be in lock down now and loss of life and economic doom could of been avoided. The UK should of been doing more testing, and impossed quarantine restrictions, or set requirements for medical certificates for people coming into the UK from affected areas. The UK airports were not screening passengers, or making people fill landing cards with seat numbers and contacting tracing info. We invited Covid19 here, and once it came we kept our children in school even after teachers were infected in some of those schools, we told super market workers and teachers, and the public not to wear masks. We didnt invest in tests, extra nhs bed and respirator capacity or ppe for our nhs and population. The lock down inplace now could be 6 months long and will cripple the uk economically. All we had to do was take action sooner, after half term if the lock down had begun then things would of been easier to isolate the people reurning from italy before mass community transmission occured.

@liberoncolours Boris announced that as a policy they would follow herd immunity and then announced that they had shifted their position and decided upon suppression instead of herd immunity, it was reported as a change of tactic. Not that herd immunity wouldn't apply, but that it wouldn't be relied on as a short term measure.

I have completely missed this part of the story. When exactly did this happen. Which annoucement? Please when. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Herd immunity wouldn’t be relied on as a short term measure? Who said that? What does that mean?

All I remember is Boris brining lockdown forward sooner than originally planned.

@MarshaBradyo yes that sequence of events is what I remember too.

Herd immunity wouldn’t be relied on as a short term measure? Who said that? What does that mean? bool, please stop worrying about it. It was shorthand and written late at night after a day of homeschooling! Basically there was a change of direction after the Imperial report plus a great deal of pressure from Europe - and that isn't in conflict with what marsha wrote.. but look, it doesn't matter. The key thing is that no, I don't think anyone is gaslighting you, people have been specific with their queries to you on this thread, asking for your sources - you haven't responded with sources and it doesn't matter - you are supporting lockdown, it is all good.

In relation to S Korea, as i said, you may find the different perspective interesting or helpful, or you may not.

All I remember is Boris brining lockdown forward sooner than originally planned.

There was no clear intention for any lockdown (also shorthand).
The WHO and many other European countries were shocked and strongly disagreed with the UK policy at the time. It's on the news. Nobody is trying to gaslight you and it's not our imagination.

Example:
www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/europe/boris-johnson-uk-coronavirus-response-ramped-up/index.html

@liberoncolours I am going to leave this thread now. I don’t like the turn it has taken. ‘Please stop worrying about it’ is the most patronising awful thing to say after what has gone before (and is a typical thing to be said by somebody gaslighting.)

Achieving ‘herd immunity’ by allowing an entirely new infectious & lethal disease to run through your population rather than through vaccination is a reckless gamble. The deaths required to achieve 60% are totally unacceptable to most empathetic morally-functioning people.
And then there’s the science of it. I believe SARS & MERS both proved this wouldn’t work. Close contact studies of covid19 have found infection rates of between 0.14% - 2.6%. Contact & serology studies of SARS & MERS found infection rates of between 0.15% -0.19%. Serology studies in Guangdong province of 320 000 people and only 0.14% were positive for covid-19.
It suggests herd immunity lite is completely and dangerously misguided.
It also suggests early social distancing, testing & tracing would have made containment entirely possible - as the WHO & many people on these threads were urging back in February. Therein lies the tragedy of what is coming our way...

@bool people are just trying to get their head round what is going on with the virus.

@mac12 I agree with you.

Out of the West Ireland and NZ seem to be following an approach for low percentage and therefore containment. Long term it will be interesting to see how the entire year goes before a vaccine is available. Containment may work, not saying it definitely won’t, they will have to consider economy too in the mix.

mac12

Agreed. This was entirely avoidable. It's like watching a slow car crash, with everyone lining up to argue at the last moment about where the impact should be.

All we had to do was take action sooner

Yes.

Schools have been shut a fortnight but the death rate is still accelerating. Not sure this thread has aged well.

@grumpiestoldwoman, it’s been discussed before and the general consensus seems to be on average the virus intubates for 14 days, 7 days of being ill at home and then either improving or attending hospital. There may be a few days of low level support and then possibly ventilation up to two weeks on average I think. There are cases of people deteriorating rapidly but the above timeline seems to be accepted as a normal timeframe.

Two weeks is no time to assess the impact of any particular measure.