Why are so many people still convinced that following/tightening "the rules" has this thing over sooner?

[Makeitgoaway]

Or maybe it's me who's misunderstood?

"The Rules" are not intended to prevent the spread they are intended to slow it to a level where the NHS can cope with ICU admissions. So far, we have done that, new beds have been created quicker than they have been filled.

If we slow the spread more than necessary (I.e. so that there remains spare capacity) the crisis lasts longer than necessary. No additional lives are saved, the deaths are just more spread out in time and it's longer until we can get back to normal.

The restrictions were never intended to stop us getting ill, just to stop us all being ill at once. It won't be over until there is a vaccine (years?) or until "enough" people have had it that it no longer presents a substantial threat to the NHS.

The obsession with having rules followed/tightened, beyond what is necessary to protect the NHS just means the whole thing lasts longer, which is why, the rules are deliberately set up so that there will still be some, but reduced, transmission.

Why do people keep asserting that if we all follow the rules to the nth degree it will be over quicker.

FWIW I am following the rules, wfh, daily exercise, occasional essential shopping, but I'm frustrated with people who want to insist the exercise shouldn't be allowed, or that people in non essential jobs who can't wfh shouldn't be allowed to work, or that all non essential deliveries should be banned. It makes no sense.

ok - IF the lockdown has reduced the number of cases - as we have seen in (probably) China, Italy, Austria. Then it stands to reason that a theoretical very long perfect lockdown (including closing borders) will reduce the number of cases to 0 in a country. The science is that if the infected person does not pass it on to anyone else, then it does not propagate. The person either recovers or doesn’t but the virus does not spread.

The question is - is this perfect lockdown possible or will there always be some asymptomatic transmission in the essential workers category who have to keep interacting? Early, frequent testing of healthcare workers and organising shifts in a way to reduce spread may help.

If you ensure infected people are quarantined strictly and contact-traced then it might be possible to end the epidemic. I believe there may be some precedent in requiring segregation of infected people - I think with Contagious TB.

I think it is possible, but the cost may be very high, especially as it is so widespread now.

Also - multiple testing to ensure someone is truly negative before being allowed back into the community, especially care homes would help.

Testing wont really help right now as we dont know I'd it can flare up again like shingles or herpes, where you can become immune ( so far its not looking good for that) and you are negative at the precise moment you take the test you cant garuntee the seconds after..

Makeitgoaway not sooner, but it is important that people cooperate to keep the numbers under control and many do feel cooperating is somehow beneath them or a blow to their human rights. Other people see them risking making it harder for everyone and get angry.

We still don't know if people who have had the virus have immunity or how long that lasts.

We've had over 11,000 deaths (just counting those in hospital) so far and none of those people died because the NHS is overwhelmed, because it isn't yet.

The only way to get out of this is to find the virus. The only way we find the virus is to identify those people who may be infected and test and isolate, find contacts and quarantine contacts. That is in a sense - community empowerment, community involvement and public health intervention through the use of case finding, isolation, contact and quarantine is the alternative to having lock-down - and having a health system that's capable of absorbing any increase in cases.

Dr Michael Ryan, WHO

There is a difference between shingles and herpes where once infected it can remain latent and reactivate at any time and you are infectious to susceptible people vs viruses where they mutate so that even if you had it once, you are still susceptible to (a mutated version of) it again - like flu.

The concern I have heard is of the 2nd type rather than the 1st (not sure if this is due to the type of virus the Coronavirus family is). In any case, even if it mutates, you could theoretically still reduce infection to 0. Though you would have to be v careful about border checks.

Viruses tend to mutate in the direction of reduced virulence

Personally I think it has already mutated at least once Lthiugh I'm.not a dr or a scientist etx

The reason being that before it was killing people who had a variety if risk factors had underlying condition . Now its killing perfectly healthy people and even teenagers.

OP I was just about to start a thread about this!

Can't believe people genuinely think "tighter restrictions needed so we defeat the virus". Wtf!! Where has this thinking even come from?!

Unless every country in the world shuts its borders and keep its population in doors for 3 months, the virus will not be eradicated until a vaccine is found.
And if anyone has any knowledge of history, politics, geopolitics... a worldwide lockdown ain't gonna happen! Ever.

Can't believe people genuinely think "tighter restrictions needed so we defeat the virus". Wtf!! Where has this thinking even come from?!

This with bells on. Its actually becoming ridiculous now. So much misinformation being spread and the sad thing is so many people believe this.

What is the difference numerically between squashing this and keeping it at a suitable level for the NHS to cope ?

Ie getting NHS back to normal procedures , staff getting breaks etc whilst coping with corona victims? Without an expectation of another event of this magnitude hitting the NHS in the short to medium term?

I suspect it's pretty negligible myself.

I agree with you OP but I think when people say it will be over quicker if we stick to the rules I think they are talking about LOCKDOWN being over quicker rather than the pandemic ending quicker.

Everyone knows that for the pandemic to be over fastest means maximising transmission!

Ultimately the number of people contracting the virus will be the same
Yes. The goal is to reduce the number of people who are ill at any one time, so the number of extremely ill people does not exceed the NHS capacity (otherwise the excess people won’t receive treatment). Also so there are enough well people at any one time to keep society going, eg deliver groceries and keep the electricity and water on.

Actually it will be "over" quicker if we just let it rip through the population
Yes - everyone gets sick at once and it’s over very quickly. Lots of people die because theres insufficient capacity to treat them all, and insufficient people to keep essential services running e.g. food deliveries and utilities.

There are 66 million people in England.

I'd like to know the maths between how many can be " safely released " over what time period between now and when the NHS will cease to exist due to money running out/no one working.

The number that can be safely released depends upon what restrictions you enforce at the same time

The number that can be safely released with restriction and virus will be very much ( millions ) smaller than the numbers who can have greater freedoms if you assume quarentine of all incoming flights, even regional quarantine, and apps on phone or wristbands to monitor who you come in contact with , lots of covid testing and tracing of victims and their contact , and strong social distancing ( so no gigs for a while )

Can someone explain the importance of testing as surely not all tests are accurate all of the time and the tests are very much invalid after you take them. Plus people who test negative will likely feel a false sense of security .

What will testing actually achieve really.

If you test and the person is positive, they can be put in quarantine and you can do contact tracing to see who they have been near lately and advise them to quarantine too.

What will testing actually achieve really
If you test negative you can go straight back to work instead of having to isolate for weeks when you haven’t even got it.

If testing shows you’ve had it and recovered then you don’t need to be so careful about avoiding exposure.

Testing also shows the level of immunity in the population as a whole, which is helpful in deciding whether it’s safe for vulnerable people to go out.

But how do contact trace ? I mean younclyod name a few people you saw before you felt ill but in the case of NHS staff that would be in the hundreds/thousands and then all the people they came onto contact with etc. Sounds quite simplistic. Anyone in retail seems hundreds of complete strangers a day

If testing shows you’ve had it and recovered then you don’t need to be so careful about avoiding exposure

That's assuming there's some degree of immunity. So far that's not really proving to be the case. Theres every chance you are at risk of it just as much as anyone else.

They also haven't found out how long til after you recover you are safe to be in contact with people in that you no longer transmit/shed

Contact tracing makes more sense in countries where it's not only health workers being tested, yes.
In some places they have used an app which literally records everyone you've been near (who also have the app) and then alerts them when you're tested positive. All anonymously, supposedly.

The app seems to be planned in the UK:
www.bbc.com/news/technology-52263244

I agree people saying we need a stricter lockdown as people aren't listening and the sooner we can end this .
I actually think this is why people were jumping up and down for a lockdown as then it will be all over idea .
Of course we can't just lockdown then all back to normal after a few weeks , I think some people think this will happen.
But I do wonder what the government strategy is , we are not ready to release lockdown yet .
It's costing the government billions so there needs to be a plan . To allow the people less at risk out first seams likely.
The testing would be good but like others have said if you can have a test to prove you've had the virus and can go out can you catch it again and has it got worse ? .

So the app is voluntary, dependant on having a smart phone, only records "significant" contact so if I pass you and cough presumably you wont be alerted.. ...

Nice idea but majorly flawed.

Seems it's also via blue tooth which many people dont have switched on all the time.

And currently no one is tested unless they are in hospital are they?

Not entirely sure how helpful it would be. And not being funny but imagine turning up to work and going " I feel absolutely fine but a complete stranger I passed in the street has self diagnosed as having corona and I have a yellow.alert I'm off for two weeks bye...

Couldn't agree more OP. We are sticking to 'the rules' but have no idea why people are getting so worked up about doing it perfectly. I think protecting as many people as we can is important, but with a realistic idea of what we are doing. The majority of us are going to have to get sick or wait for a vaccine.