Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Did UK introduce restrictions too early?

861 replies

Makeitgoaway · 29/03/2020 10:07

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?

OP posts:
CloudsCanLookLikeSheep · 29/03/2020 12:31

seeing as deaths are doubling every 2-3 days which means from the maths that we will be 1000 deaths a day by next weekend, I don't think they locked down too soon

Makeitgoaway · 29/03/2020 12:33

Isn't herd immunity still the plan though, we just want the herd to get it a bit slower? Otherwise how do we ever come out of this?

Thousands were going to die whatever we did Fatasfooook. No expert has ever tried to tell us differently.

OP posts:
Petronius16 · 29/03/2020 12:34

chipsandgin thanks for posting the video, it really is good and changes what I was going to post.

Haven’t read the whole thread, but I think the government strategy, not following the experience of other countries such as Italy, was a mistake.

As Richard Horton, Editor in Chief on the Lancet, pointed out on Question Time, the government’s original plan was to get 60% of the population to become immune by allowing the virus to run its course - herd immunity. Ten days previously to the programme they changed to the current plan.

I hope my math is right, 60% of 70million is 40 million. 40 million people getting sick. Think about it.

They got it wrong.

Gin96 · 29/03/2020 12:35

I wonder in 4 weeks time the same people will be so keen on lockdown 😊

CaptainBrickbeard · 29/03/2020 12:36

We aren’t keen on it now, Gin, for heavens sake! I hate it! I am just significantly less keen on the alternative, which is even worse!

TheCanterburyWhales · 29/03/2020 12:37

If they're still alive and it's being shown to work, then I expect so.

Gin96 · 29/03/2020 12:39

40 million will get sick but not die, they’re saying 1% which will be 400,000 but 550,000 die each year in the UK and there will be a lap over of these 2 numbers. I’m not saying it won’t be horrendous but we have to keep a prospective here.

OldQueen1969 · 29/03/2020 12:39

Whether the timing was right or wrong is a moot point now IMHO.

China sounded the alarm about this virus in December / January. Unfortunately as China is regarded as a country with dubious politics, bad human rights records and a tendency to not trust or share intelligence with the West, people reacted with scepticism. My perspective is that when they changed their behaviour and reached out, it should have made an impact - it meant something so serious was going on they had no hope of suppressing it and the only way to save face on the world stage was to come clean - they are human too but from a political perspective it still wasn't a purely altruistic decision, it was also taking into account that they would become a scapegoat and suffer at the very least economic consequences, at the worst end active aggression. Their actions are a balancing act for their own people / workforce / economy and that of the rest of the world which will affect them in the future.

Our government could have started investigating and preparing at the beginning of the year. The WHO did. Other countries started to.

Our government tried the keep calm and carry on approach, which meant the population, for the most part, stiffened their upper lips and sneered at those who were more concerned.

At the very least, testing and tracing of those coming in from other countries should have been much more rigorous, because this is an unknown quantity in terms of transmission, seriousness, lack of immunity and potential for mutation. Further restricting of testing to only those sick enough to be admitted to hospital amounts to gross negligence and could have been avoided with a more coherent response - we now have no idea how many people really have it / have had it, our understanding of transmission is hampered and we are way behind on mutation study.

All big events should have been stopped way before Crufts, Cheltenham and football.

WFH should have been implemented sooner. Schools should have been closed sooner. Orders should have been placed for vital equipment much sooner.

"Most people will get it mildly" and "only those with underlying conditions are dying" were very very dangerous things to state with such optimistic certainty - every day we discover that it's vicious even if you don't get as far as ICU. People are dying in the community because this virus can take some previously healthy people down an unexpected path.

The government has given piecemeal and woolly advice sometimes contradicting WHO information - regardless of the political aspect of the organisation, they know that if they stuff up they will be first against the wall if society does go full Mad Max. Our government has only just realised this and is trying to safeguard itself.

The sudden lockdown is not just because people weren't doing "as advised", it's because the government has finally accepted that their science and the science from other sources were too drastically at odds for us to continue to be reassured.

The "We didn't realise" handwringing from some ministers is disingenuous in the extreme.

Pandemics are modelled for, exercises routinely held, corporations have vested interests in being involved in this planning and there is no excuse for the lack of ventilators, PPE or other economic contingency measures for this scenario. Other pernicious agendas may be at play but it is difficult to ask questions without being accused of conspiracy thought.

The government did not call lockdown too early I feel, but I think the real reason they did was only partly to minimise spread and NHS over-loading. The other reason was because if we had waited any longer civil unrest when we hit peak would have been widespread, and much more difficult to contain.

just some thoughts.

WeAllHaveWings · 29/03/2020 12:40

Then Scotland and Wales forced them to announce their decision earlier than they would have done

Nothing wrong with that. Scotland and Wales have every right to make their own announcements when they feel appropriate to their own countries.

thatgingergirl · 29/03/2020 12:40

I think the timing was about right. The situation is due for review on 13th April (?) by which time I suspect the number of infections and deaths will be such that a further possible 3 weeks of restrictions would be accepted as necessary.

Hopefully the peak will be reached and numbers start to gradually decline during that time. No idea to what level restrictions might be relaxed though - that will have to be gradual I think.

PertEllaTitsahoy · 29/03/2020 12:42

I thought the point of lockdown was to stretch out the rate of infection to prevent too much strain on the NHS.

If times right it would have been an effective strategy. Alas...

cologne4711 · 29/03/2020 12:43

I don't think lockdown was too early but I do think the large events should have been cancelled.

On one day we had a schools' athletics event with 2000 people attending in Liverpool and the next day England Athletics were banning even unofficial small group training.

cologne4711 · 29/03/2020 12:44

We aren’t keen on it now, Gin, for heavens sake

A lot of people do see to be extremely keen on it, to be fair, and want stricter rules.

cologne4711 · 29/03/2020 12:44

seem

Gwenhwyfar · 29/03/2020 12:44

The rest of the world says we were TOO LATE. We should have acted as soon as it was clear that things were really bad in Italy. We have fewer ICU beds than Italy does.

doofusmoof · 29/03/2020 12:44

@Bigchocfrenzy exactly & I want some chocolate now!

MugsOfTea · 29/03/2020 12:46

Well wuhan maintained it for a few months

They did it for 2 months and I think there is a strong suspicion they reopened before they should because they had to (economically) so are now supressing true infection rates to apear as if they are ok.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/life-after-lockdown-has-china-really-beaten-coronavirus

I really hope none of that is true...

Alsohuman · 29/03/2020 12:47

A lot of people do see to be extremely keen on it, to be fair, and want stricter rules

A lot of people won’t be happy until we’re all locked in our wardrobes, rocking and wailing.

Blakes77 · 29/03/2020 12:48

Blakes77 they've been working on it haven't they. Arranging how other forms can assist in producing parts and assembly, and dyson had to design a whole new one. you can't just magically start production, preparations need to be made, which is what everyone involved has been doing. I assume as quickly as they can!
Yeah, I know how manufacturing works ..but the govnment have known the score since January. They actually ignored bids from manufacturing firms for ages, according to the FT. Also, Dyson wanted to design a whole new one, rather than use existing design.

PertEllaTitsahoy · 29/03/2020 12:49

1% which will be 400,000 but 550,000 die each year in the UK and there will be a lap over of these 2 numbers.

The point is that a large number of that 400,000 wouldn't die if they were able to be treated properly.

If cases could be stretched out so the NHS isnt so overwhelmed then more people will survive the more serious effects.

Wheresthebeach · 29/03/2020 12:49

Too late. Large events should have been cancelled weeks earlier. They were out of step with...literally...every other infected country. They believe in the survival of the fittest and that drove their interpretation of the science. Lockdown is hard for sure...but they should have acted weeks earlier to minimise the spread. Its not like we couldn’t see this coming.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 29/03/2020 12:51

If we'd had a short early lockdown, what do you think happens when we come out of it?

Well, if we could get our cases back down to a very low level - basically rewind the epidemic to February - we could go back to testing and contact tracing.

Don't forget, every week we delay the progress of the epidemic gives us time to make more PPE, more ventilators, and work on treatments and vaccines.

Gin96 · 29/03/2020 12:51

Ha ha I think a lot of people on here like the thought of us all locked away 😊

doofusmoof · 29/03/2020 12:51

Well wuhan maintained it for a few months

So we want to be more like China?...

Thinkingabout1t · 29/03/2020 12:52

oldQueen, I agree with everything you say here. Those have been my observations too.

I didn’t know Johnson was relying on social science, the ‘nudge’ theory of influencing public opinion, rather than medical science. Couldn't understand (till I read that Spiked article i linkedto above) why we were ignoring the World Health Organisation.

Swipe left for the next trending thread