We’re all going to get it anyway?

[PuzzledObserver]

If I had a loo roll for every time I’ve seen that written on here, I’d be rich beyond measure. I don’t believe it’s true. Here’s why:

1. If we did all get it, it would burn out and disappear. But that has never happened without either mass vaccination (smallpox, polio not quite) or swift containment (SARS and MERS). It’s too late for containment with Covid.

2. If we take lockdown seriously, and even if it is turned on and off as has been suggested, there will be some who manage to avoid getting infected long enough for the vaccine to come.

I’m not sure we’d all get it but does the modelling not suggest that with no changes as to how things are done and how it spreads that 80% of us would have had it by around May? Even with a 1% death rate that would be half a million deaths

Modelling suggests that most of us will get it. It won’t burn out as such, it will mutate and return next year or just continue to circulate, people that have had it will have some level of immunity but if it mutates they could get it again (but might not be so severe)? The only thing that will get rid of it completely is a vaccine and every one would need to be vaccinated. Because the virus may mutate then we would be vaccinated every year like we are the flu?

They reckon an infection will confer about two years immunity, but this depends on the level of infection - mild, moderate, or severe.

So yes, everyone who has it could catch it again.

The mutation rate is low, so it’s probably not going to circulate that way in the next year anyway.

No one knows if you get it mildly, if you can get a worse dose later on- if the immunity conferred is 100% for the two or so years. A bit like the chicken pox virus.

So yes, I do think everyone will get it and maybe we will all get it multiple times until we eventually die from it when we’re in our 80s or so, unless we get a vaccine.

My feeling is that we will have immunity if we have got it or get it until about 2 years, or the vaccine has been developed, and then it will be a background infection knocking off those susceptible for our lifetimes, as flu does.

More of us will get it that is certain but what we don't want is everyone to get it at once that's why we are on lockdown.

Exactly, ilovecakeandwine, the lock down is solely to control the demand on the ICU wards.

65% of us will get it and then the spread will stop. That is 40m of us in the UK. With a death rate of 0.1% - which the experts are getting more sure of now - it means 40,000 will die. Same as Italy who are now at over 10,000 and a quarter of the way through.

Yes, the modelling does suggest that 80% would get it without intervention. But with intervention, I thought it was not just about spreading the 80% over a longer period, but actually reducing it. Have I got that wrong?

It’s about spreading the 65% over a longer period. That’s the percentage needed for group immunity

To keep the load on the nhs unreal control I think you need to slow it for a very long time, so it is more likely that you will be vaccinated than get the virus

China have already shown that its possible to almost stop it, again the things they are doing there will only be needed until vaccine

How are we all going to catch it if we're all at home?

@Ostanovka I don’t know but Italy spread is still going strong

Yes, that really doesn't make sense to me. I assumed I and DC wouldn't get it now it's been 10 days since we saw anyone.

If you are truly shielded and wiping everything that comes into the house from outside then you won’t. You then need to wait until we have created group immunity with the rest of us eg 66% immunity. It’s what I am doing to my parents. Shielding then as they are so vulnerable. They can come out when the virus is not able to spread anymore. That will be when 66% of us are immune.

Thanks, that's reassuring.

@Bool where are you getting 66% from? Part of the debate about MMR is that we need 95% vaccination for herd immunity to protect those who are unvaccinated

This thread is just a massive heap of made up numbers.

Sorry, but I had to say it.

@puzzledobserver it comes from how infectious the virus is. Eg how many people one person infects. That is much higher for measles and hence you need 95% immunity.

@nellodee is it? They are numbers from the scientists. Italy will results in 40,000 dead. They are a quarter of the way through.

The Italian health minister was on the TV this morning. He said they are now testing people with mild symptoms which is why their numbers aren't decreasing

Yes, that really doesn't make sense to me. I assumed I and DC wouldn't get it now it's been 10 days since we saw anyone.

If you aren't planning on leaving the house again for the next few months, then it is highly unlikely you will get it. However, most people will be going to the shops, going out for a walks, have someone in the household going out to work etc. This is how it will spread more slowly.

Italy may be slowing down, possibly also Spain. Although the number of deaths is horrific , it's a lot less than if everyone had has it

@midgebabe the end death number will be the same regardless. Unless you run out of beds. That is why we need to flatten the curve to slow it down.

Someone on another thread posted a link to an article by a Swiss scientist. It said that normal mortality in Italy was up to 2000 deaths per day

I thought the whole point in the 'lockdown'was really just to delay everyone getting at the one time and stop the surge on the NHS so that they can deal with it over time and give them the chance to get a vaccine made for those who really need it. So inevitable most people will get?

@Astrid84 yep. 66% of us will need to get it. Slowly.