If you're calling for schools to go back, restrictions to be relaxed...

[GrumpiestOldWoman]

...were you also in the group shouting for a lockdown a month ago?

People seem to be as desperate to open things back up now as they were to lockdown a month ago, yet we're still not over the peak.

It's hard not to conclude that the novelty has worn off.

Why are the press giving more airtime to 'relax restrictions' messages rather than 'UK worst in Europe' which we clearly are when care home deaths are added to the hospital deaths numbers? When other countries were reporting the death numbers we have today the UK was screaming for lockdown, but now it doesn't seem to be newsworthy

I don't get it?

I'm getting a bit sick of the comparisons with NZ I have to say. Matt Haig bleating on on social media about how NZ locked down at zero deaths and are now on the cusp of being 'virus free'. So how are they going to come out of lockdown now then? With pretty much zero immunity among the population? Surely unless they completely close their borders until a vaccine is found, they are going to be susceptible? All this 'eradicating the virus through lockdown' guff is pissing me off. And that's without considering their population density compared to ours.

I'm really no Tory, but the fact is we won't know the best course of action on this until it is all over and it will be too late by then anyway.

Carole “All this 'eradicating the virus through lockdown' guff is pissing me off. And that's without considering their population density compared to ours. “

Yes. I’d be in a fury if I lived in NZ.

@noblegiraffe Hardly anyone got SARS or MERS because of the swift actions of the relevant governments, and the leading scientists of those countries are successfully implementing the same strategies in their countries, and advising us about strategy. Which is not to keep people locked up for months on end.

The situation after lockdown will not be the same as before lockdown.

Before lockdown, the virus was spreading like wildfire through bars, restaurants, social gatherings, schools, transport.

Now, the vast majority of the people who would have spread it NO LONGER HAVE THE VIRUS. This makes a huge difference.

The children going back to school should not have the virus.

There will still be pockets - people who didn't follow rules, people who were exposed due to their work. But it should be a totally different landscape.

In other countries, schools are going back, but restaurants etc not opening until the summer, all large crowd functions cancelled.

None of the scientists are talking about "herd immunity" as a policy so far as I know - instead the same techniques as used to suppress SARS MERS etc.

There will still be as much social distancing as reasonably possible until the risk is over - which could be by natural mutation or possibly vaccine, or effective early treatment - but not to the current extent, not hiding away or destroying businesses.

Until then, testing, tracking, local lockdowns if necessary - which would be better than everyone staying locked down.

Obviously no one knows for sure - but it is a good time to listen to good science and good medicine, wise words spoken by a leading SARS expert recently.

COVID is killing the old and the ill

Lockdown is destroying the fit and the well

Unfortunately, you are right, @ListeningQuietly

“Now, the vast majority of the people who would have spread it NO LONGER HAVE THE VIRUS. This makes a huge difference.”

I’m not following this. We don’t know if we’ve had it?

Hardly anyone got SARS or MERS because of the swift actions of the relevant governments

And because they didn’t spread as easily as Covid-19. SARS in particular was only infectious when the patient was really ill so unlikely to be at work or shopping at Sainsbury’s.

I’m not following this. We don’t know if we’ve had it?

The incubation period plus the period of the disease is less than the lockdown period. If you had it, you have recovered. You will not have passed it on. Does that make sense?

@nobegiraffe that is true, not as easily, but it still took a fair bit of effort to suppress them both.

the other thing, lilactree is that we are mostly more informed now. If most people had caught it in Feb it is unlikely they would have recognised the symptoms accurately or the threat to others and would not have immediately self isolated with their their dc, whereas now they probably would.

COVID is killing the old and the ill it really is important that people realise that this is not true, as otherwise as soon as strict lockdown is over they will go back to their old ways. Young and fit people can get the disease very severely and die. I support everything being phased back to normal after the peak, but I think we all need to be as well informed as possible about how serious the disease is potentially for everyone so that they we all take sensible precautions.

“ If you had it, you have recovered. You will not have passed it on. Does that make sense?”

But if you haven’t had it? I’ll just go to my workplace on the tube, possibly catch it, not know, and pass it around.

Also, the combination of hay fever and asthma means the odd cough and itchy eyes are just the norm for me now till September.

Wealth redistribution is clearly the answer to getting us through this.

Hat “ Wealth redistribution is clearly the answer to getting us through this.”

How?

Half of the critical care patients are under 50, 94% have no severe co-morbidities.

Source?

I think the three week extension is sensible.

I’ve posted this on a few threads, but the NEU have published a really sensible document that asks some interesting questions of the government about how plans for schools reopening will protect children, staff and the wider community.

I’m wondering how it would work with staffing - if some teachers are shielding and then staff who become symptomatic/have household members who are symptomatic have to self isolate. I’m not sure there would be enough staff for many schools to open in a meaningful or safe way. I don’t know the answer to that.

Now, the vast majority of the people who would have spread it NO LONGER HAVE THE VIRUS

Eh? But the few people who do have it have the potential to restart the fire very quickly.

lilactree But if you haven’t had it? I’ll just go to my workplace on the tube, possibly catch it, not know, and pass it around actually the point I was making was not that - I was saying that the landscape would be very different because the majority of people who would have been giving it to you (you would have to catch it to pass it around....) should no longer have it and wouldn't have given it to you or anyone else if they had been on lockdown.

So the numbers of people out there spreading it should have hugely lowered compared to before lockdown

There is still the risk that some people will not know they have it... but again less risk than before because the numbers will be lower hopefully.

As to whether you have had it - different question - we are told that it is hoped that there will be an antibodies test at some point.

Hm. Some numbers I have been playing with.

There are (were) around 32.5 million people in employment in the UK. from ONS

15.7% of the population is aged between 0-12 years old - which is 10.43 million. different ONS page

Now the average family size in the UK has 2.4 children - some of these will obviously be older than 12, so lets say that at a guess 7 million families have one or more children under the age of 12.

Now I am going to make a sexist assumption - which I know is not true in a huge number of cases, but probably is still more often true than not. I am going to assume that every family has a female parent who is capable of taking care of the children - be it as a single parent or as a member of a couple. This is simply for ease - it would take ages to find the statistics for the proportion of families who have a female main wage earner or single male parent etc, and for a "play around with figures" I am not sure it is necessary.

So - of women who are the parent of children where the youngest child in the family is aged 0-12 less than 41% work full time and 39% work part time. another ONS link That would equate to 5.6 million working mothers. That is about 17% of the UK work force have responsibilities caring for younger children.

The actual sensible thing for the Government to do would be to have several schemes ongoing at the same time.

1. Open schools for families with both parents employed in "essential roles". I know this is happening at the moment, but I am looking forward to ways of getting back to work without placing large numbers of children in school.

1. Provide one caregiver in each family with children under 12 with "parental pay", possibly at a proportion of their normal pay. This should only be an option available to "non essential" workers. In the case of a family with one essential worker and one non-essential then the non-essential worker would be eligible - in families with 2 non essential workers, they should choose which is eligible. In cases where one parent is at home anyway, or is furloughed, this would not apply.

Anyway, just pondering it all.

Now, the vast majority of the people who would have spread it NO LONGER HAVE THE VIRUS.

If that is true - how come there are more hospital admissions with CV than there were when we locked down?

I mean - yes, we will reach the point where fewer people are carrying the virus, but we aren't there at the moment.

And, of course, when this all started there would have been a moment where only one person had the virus. It only takes one person and some time to get from there to here.

Eh? But the few people who do have it have the potential to restart the fire very quickly

Before the lockdown a lot of people had it, and they will no longer have it - because they virus will have gone from them. Before the lockdown it had been spreading since January. Now all the people who had it who have been on lockdown no longer have it.

So hopefully we are going back to the sort of situation we would have had in January if we had taken the risk seriously. Smaller numbers. As and when someone gets it, they will react more quickly, and self isolate, hopefully. Others will notice symptoms and react. The authorities will react more quickly if necessary. And there is more in the way of medical support now than there was then.

So the risk is completely different.

So, far fewer people are likely to be spreading it and it won't spread like wild fire in the same way because everyone is more alert to the risk.

So, far fewer people are likely to be spreading it and it won't spread like wild fire in the same way because everyone is more alert to the risk.

Ah. An optimist, I see.

If that is true - how come there are more hospital admissions with CV than there were when we locked down? because of incubation period up to 2 weeks, and then symptoms often start mild and take a few weeks to get serious - you are talking a number of weeks - and more as time goes on evidently because each person infected 2 or 3 others. Until lockdown. But if you look at worldometer you will see that the pattern in recovering countries, ahead of the UK in terms of the peak, new cases are starting to go down. It is at that point it is thought that they are heading out of the peak. And after a number of weeks after that, a phased return to normal starts - not immediate.

Ah. An optimist, I see - I have just responded to your other post in more detail. In relation to being an optimist, I am quoting from leading scientists' advice - if advice is followed, and it is managed properly this is what is expected, not to do with being an optimist.