Do we need to create an artificial spike? If so, when?

[CheriLittlebottom]

Was thinking about this off the back of random musing about when schools might reopen.

Do we need to try to get a lot of society infected with this in the early summer, say June, so that the NHS have June, July, August to deal with the biggest wave of sick people, then hopefully see numbers coming down from September as we start getting into autumn and winter?

Obviously we can't stay in lockdown forever, or until there's a vaccine, the economy will completely tank. Is there a "best" time to increase transmission in the hope that we can push up herd immunity? Was also thinking about those in the shielded groups, how long can they realistically keep themselves completely isolated?

If schools did reopen after the May half term, and most people went back to work (not the most at risk) would that work? Would the NHS have the capacity and equipment in place by then?

I don't know enough about transmission rates etc to know if this is a good idea or not!

This herd immunity bullshit is so dangerous. No, I'd rather not get it at all

Herd immunity, whether natural or from a vaccine, is the only way to eradicate a disease though, @Sunflower20. There isn't really another choice other than trying to control it with lockdown and quarantine but the only likely end to that would be with herd immunity.

Unfortunately, you are correct, venusandmars. It probably will be a choice between long term shielding for the most vulnerable or taking the risk of catching coronavirus, although with widespread serological testing, quarantine and self-isolation measures, a reduction in the number of infectious people in the community after lockdown, there will be periods where the risk is lower.

My mum is one of these. Shielding because of age and frailty. OK for a short walk out now for a bit of air - she's not meeting or even seeing anyone out and about. Different for her once our villagers emerge!

I think the people in the shielded group will be in lock down for a long time, i suppose if we know that we're immune and can't pass it on once we have had it once then when tested they could be visited more by immune family members but its a big if and a big when.
I'm not sure how they're going to cope mentally so isolated but for this group I think the risk of death from covid is high regardless of how much or little overstretched the nhs is, so I dont see what other choice they have.

I think your post is barking. Of course we can stay in lockdown as long as we need to. That's the whole point of lockdown.

Ruffle how long do you think the government can pay 80% of the country's wage bill? Gow long before there is civil unrest? How can we take children out of school for possibly 2 years?

@RuffleCrow in an ideal world, yes. In reality it isn't sustainable, far more people would die from a sustained lockdown. It won't be all or nothing though, I imagine there will be a staggering of things reopening, the advice for different groups will differ (hopefully support will be ongoing for those who may have to stay shielded) etc. But we won't all be in lockdown until a vaccine is distributed.

@RuffleCrow I am astounded at the lack of economic awareness which will then cause its own deaths, mental health issues and potential civil unrest.

As long as it takes. That's what they've promised - to put human lives over GDP. You think an artifically created 'spike' isn't going ti create more civil unrest?! you're dreaming! Dangerous, idealistic, social darwinism.

Ruffle do you really think that the world can sustain this level of shutdown for the next year to eighteen months?

I am not sure if you are being serious ruffle, but either way, I think you might be in for a surprise.

That's nonsense. How many people have died 'from lockdown' so far, as opposed to from Covid-19 @Marieo ? You need evidence before you start making ludicrous claims.

Where's your evidence? As long as people have food to eat, clothes to wear, sanitation, habitation and healthcare, they will survive. I'm struggling to believe anyone is setiously suggesting removing the last of those essentials by creating an 'artificial spike' tbh. Utter madness. The NHS is already at breaking point, people!

Similarly where is your evidence that lockdown is sustainable? Look at other countries, Italy is already thinking about reopening some stuff due to the threat of civil unrest, and it doesn't take a genius to foresee the implications of the economy being up the swanny. Assuming that people will keep producing those things you have listed is also naieve. There have been fewer deaths, but the manner of them and the numbers at what was just a week of lockdown at the time is actually scary. There are far more implications and things to consider beyond stay in and we won't get it. Also no one wants a spike at all, but if it's going to happen, which the data from elsewhere suggests; of course summer is preferable rather than in autumn or winter when the health service is also burdened by flu.

We can't sit at home getting free money for 2 years - the government don't have a pile of savings especially for a pandemic, they're borrowing heavily to cover the cost to the economy and their credit rating is being lowered as we speak. If no-one produces anything, there will be no tax to fund the NHS.

Depressions and austerity kills hundreds of thousands of people and shortens life expectancy - through poverty, homelessness, unemployment, suicide.

We can't just stay locked inside forever - someone is paying for everyone to sit at home and will have to be paid back, unless you have a mountain of savings and have refused state aid. Trust me, if our economy crashes and we end up with hyperinflation like Zimbabwe, that will be a lot worse for everyone than coronavirus.

You can't put "human lives over GDP". They're one and the same. The countries with low GDP also have really low quality of life and people die a lot more than here.

Money is a social construct. The economy crashed in 2008 and the government asked the bank of england to engage in trillions of pounds of quantitative easing to bail out the banks. Such short memories you have.

More likely a test will be developed to see if people have had it. It will be rolled out and people will be issued with a band or something and they can return to day to day life. Everyone else waits till they've had it or a vaccine is available.

More time saved by keeping under NHS capacity =

• More ventilators made
• More research into most effective treatments
• More chance for testing to be developed and dampen spread

Garlic does nothing for covid-19 @AltogetherNo. The BBC has a page of debunked myths and that's one of them. Young, fit, healthy people are now dying from this in the UK. Let's not pretend fresh air and exercise will save us. It's a nice delusion, but it's still a delusion. Stay at home. Save lives. Protect the NHS.

Let's not pretend it's all going to go away if we Stay Home and Save Lives. Nice delusion, but just a delusion.

So what do you think is enabling China and Italy to slowly get a handle on their own nightmare @testbank? Pixie dust?