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 do think surveillance is a particularly thorny issue.

If you watch the interview i mentioned above, he talks about various short term/long term variables.

Hi, liberoncolours - can you link the interview you are talking about again, please, because the only interview I’ve watched that you linked does not give any timelines, short or long term, especially in relation to a virus that has now spread outside the Asian countries that were already prepared for it and has now become global, so by definition is wildly out of control and a continuing threat to the countries that are currently keeping a lid on it.

walkaround

I've read your post carefully and I honestly don't think you're making any sense. We were talking about the UK. You've responded by saying there's no point trying to copy South Korea because not every country could have done it. Well no. We were talking about the UK. You've suggested it's pointless to adopt a plan of testing and tracing now because it would have been better started in January. While it would indeed have been better started in January, you have no basis to suggest it's pointless now.

You've suggested there's no point delaying anything because it's not going away. Quite how you reached this one is mystifying. Swine flu. MERS. Vaccines. Better treatments. Situations do change. Not easily but they do. And we can change the picture significantly ourselves. Look at the difference in circumstances of New York and, say, Wuhan today. They're probably not where they are because of herd immunity! If you can prevent the virus finding new members of the community to transmit to while a person is recovering, it doesn't have anywhere else to go. Do that stringently enough and you're hopefully left with pockets of infection that can be controlled with scrupulous tracing and testing.

Whoever suggested a second wave after a short lockdown would be more manageable because some of the population would have immunity is so very wrong. You need much larger numbers of people getting sick, dying and recovering.

You don't seem to want to find a solution that doesn't involve death. Because any solution is expensive and inconvenient. Yes, I find that callous and irresponsible. Unless you're a nurse in ICU and have neglected to mention it. But no nurse in ICU would be in such a bubble.

I wonder how people who don't like lockdown will react to an alternative where they're allowed to move around more but in a society where tracking and testing are mandatory. I suspect they will hate it and choose to stay home rather than submit!

0vc - I’ve read your post carefully and I honestly don’t think you are making any sense... particularly since you clearly haven’t understood anything I have said and have instead given a bizarre interpretation of it in your own post. And I would love to find a solution that doesn’t involve death. I see no evidence, however, that this country is capable of getting itself into a position to behave like South Korea this side of Christmas. So I am extremely keen to ensure at the very least that something is done about preventing another wave of this infection in the autumn/winter, given that I don’t believe a lockdown like this one is sustainable for long enough for the country to get itself into a position where it is set up for testing and tracing like S. Korea.

If we can get to the position of being able to test, test, test, and trace, trace, trace, and this enables us to largely get in with our lives, I will be very happy with that. Even testing NHS staff seems to be difficult, however.

can you link the interview you are talking about again, please, because the only interview I’ve watched that you linked does not give any timelines, short or long term, especially in relation to a virus that has now spread outside the Asian countries that were already prepared for it and has now become global, so by definition is wildly out of control and a continuing threat to the countries that are currently keeping a lid on it I have linked a few interviews - it is the one with Prof Woo Joo. I am not sure what you mean by "timelines" - I spoke about variables, different possibilities, short term/long term which he talks about. Is it still relevant? Yes I think it is. If you don't, that is fine.

Sorry - by that is fine, what I mean is, we can agree to differ. It is the same virus that he is speaking about, and it is currently still acting in the same way as predicted by the Asian scientists generally. I found the interview extremely informative about the likely outcomes. But as he says, things change, and the state of knowledge will change.

In terms of whether the restrictions are worth it vis a vis personal rights, which was what I thought we were talking about, I would say personal rights aren't much use if you are no longer alive. But again, you might disagree.

A really good outcome of what we are going through now would be (fingers crossed) we hit the peak and there is suppression, making testing and tracking more feasible in future. What is suggested is a phased return to normal. This time round, everyone (hopefully) would approach things differently day to day. There may be more facemasks and so on.

@walkaround Sorry I just read through my post - when I said "but you may disagree" what I meant was that I know that people are concerned about losing rights, and that it is a question of principle. For me it is a question of balance in the context of the current situation. I think also that you and I are seeing the evidence we have, the predictions about the virus behaviour itself, and the timescale of the initial peak and suppression, differently. And to be honest, neither of us know for sure. I am hoping for the best.

@liberoncolours - I certainly don’t think we disagree on what would be a more desirable position to end up in. I think I am just more pessimistic about what was genuinely possible even if we as a country had been more proactive in January (and I certainly think we should have been - I didn’t really understand at the time why the country didn’t seem more alarmed about what was going on in China, Hong Kong, S. Korea and then Italy). I am also more pessimistic about what is possible in the near future. I hope you are right and I am wrong.