Social distancing to be the norm "until there is a vaccine"

[Frompcat]

So this is what Neil Ferguson has said today and seems to be being backed up by government distancing. But what does it actually mean, does anyone know? How can social distancing be maintained if schools open again? Will we be able to visit small groups of family? Or are they literally talking about things continuing as they are for 18 months.

I think people badly need some clarity about this. I don't believe the government don't have any ideas of what their options are.

In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu.

Said 60,000 would die from swine flu.

Once upon a time, long long ago, before coronavirus, Neil Ferguson and Chris Whitty were leading lights in the fight against ebola. Here is a paper they wrote about their simple yet radical interventions to prevent the spread of a horrible, highly contageous disease:

www.nature.com/news/infectious-disease-tough-choices-to-reduce-ebola-transmission-1.16298

These two know what needs doing now. The problem is that their advice is still being filtered through SAGE which is run by behavioural scientists, not epidemiologists.

I think we can probably learn some stuff from behavioural scientists in our response to this crisis but I think we could learn a lot more from game theorists than from the fucking nudge unit.

Does anyone else feel that Neil Ferguson is starting to shoot his mouth off at any and every media opportunity? He's one of many advisors to the government: he's not singlehandedly responsible for creating all policy relating to all infectious diseases in the UK, and his ideas (and models) need to remain open to critique and peer review.

Lang “ I think we could learn a lot more from game theorists than from the fucking nudge unit.”

The nudge unit got what they aimed for though. Herd behaviour.

The nudge unit got what they aimed for though. Herd behaviour.

Yes, that's why the nudge unit need to get in the bin.

The nudge unit is junk science. Those kind of experiments are interesting when you are looking at trying to get people to make lifestyle changes. So can we nudge people to be more active? And if it does not work, the stakes are not really high.

Lang 😂 I don’t usually like that expression but this time it’s perfect 😂 I’d like them to take Ferguson to the same bin, though they’ll all keep sneaking out like Top Cat. Now that the governments worldwide have seen how easy it is to get people to behave as they want, we’re all screwed.

and the usa has a plan. some states are able to open up. up to individual governors based on case numbers. three phases to the plan.

@Lexijayde44
there’s no recoveries

Don’t be daft, loads of people have had the virus and recovered. In the public eye in government...Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorris.

They actually need more people to catch it at some point

No they don’t! Where on earth do people get these things from! Do you think China is wanting people to still catch it? That is somehow a magic number that is ‘good’?

Please squash any kind of herd immunity idea. We’ve no idea how long it lasts and anyone who catches it is taking a lottery that they might be seriously ill. It’s a bit like saying they need people to have some level of swine flu, aids, SARS or malaria. Just wrong thinking.

@LangClegsInSpace agree nudge science is just a shiny new business toy. It’s not scientifically rigorous for decision making in a pandemic.

Personally I think better testing and contact tracing will be a huge game changer. So come on government!

There are so many ways - not just social distancing- such as repressing the virus back to levels that we can identify new clusters quickly and effectively and push them back with TESTING TESTING TESTING - which is why South Koreans have many business, schools etc still open.

We can see these examples with our own eyes. Why can’t policy makers?

LilacTree1 - No, Ferguson is talking sense, he's a proper epidemiologist.

We need to find and isolate cases, trace and quarantine contacts. That's the way out of lockdown.

Lockdown gets us to a stage where R0 is low enough that this becomes feasible but we can't just have a lockdown and expect it to work on its own. It just buys us some time to put in place methods of finding and isolating cases, tracing and quarantining contacts.

This is the only strategy that has worked anywhere in the world.

I realise there is an alternative theory which most people seem to have settled for - 'herd immunity'. I understand why people have bought into that narrative but it's obscene and immoral. It will cause tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. And we don't even have any evidence for long term immunity.

Lilac - Well done for quoting from a biased spectator article. He talked of worst case scenarios both times in early stages. Scientists have said worst case scenarios for Covid would be half a million.

We then act on that info to stop the worst case scenario happening.

When it doesn’t happen they weren’t wrong it means we were wise to listen to advice.

And swine flu killed far less than initially predicted because an anti viral drug was found quickly -tamiflu.

Was there not an inherent contradiction in the hand washing/herd immunity approach? Were we supposed to get it or not? if so, why bother with the hand washing? who benefitted from that when the vulnerable were advised to isolate?

“He talked of worst case scenarios both times in early stages. Scientists have said worst case scenarios for Covid would be half a million.”

I know. But did he push for any sensible measures initially, like the contact tracing he talks about now?

And what is your preferred outcome? I don’t have a moral issue with herd immunity. I certainly wouldn’t survive but if people can get treatment they’re being denied now, I’ve no issue being collateral damage. Though the way things are going, that’s quite likely anyway! 😂

I like the way everyone’s pinning things on ‘the vaccine.’ There’s absolutely no guarantee that an effective vaccine is going to be made.

All the scientists that I am following on Twitter seem very confident that a vaccine can be created. And most people will get the actual disease in the meantime. It's likely that a lot of people have had it already.

Was there not an inherent contradiction in the hand washing/herd immunity approach? Were we supposed to get it or not? if so, why bother with the hand washing? who benefitted from that when the vulnerable were advised to isolate?

No. Social distancing and hygiene slow the rate of spread and probably also reduce the number of severe cases in the population.

If we hadn't done and weren't doing this lockdown, people wouldn't be accessing treatment they need for non covid conditions. They wouldn't even be able to access the things we have been able to preserve, like a & e. The extent of the illness and death as it exponentially grew and services of all kinds were overwhelmed with both demand and absent or fleeing staff is beyond imagination.

If things had been handled very differently initially it might have bought us more time but even places with relatively few cases are choosing lockdown right now. We are where we are, unfortunately, and it isn't a choice between lockdown and being able to access all the normal things we can do when out of lockdown.

Given that we are in our current position, what we you prefer to see happening @LilacTree1? We don't have reliable large scale antibody testing, or even enough testing for current infection available, we probably don't have the infrastructure for contact tracing and quarantine and even if we did, case numbers need to be reduced first before that can be a useful strategy. We don't know if having antibodies to the virus actually creates immunity or if it does, for how long. We don't yet have treatments to mitigate the progression of the illness.

Covid bloody 20 could be here before a vaccine for 19 is..

@LilacTree1 why do you say you certainly wouldn't survive ?

I hope that isn't so. I haven't heard of any age, gender or pre existing condition that has a 100% mortality rate with this virus. But maybe I am wrong or just not informed enough.

Pigsdofly I know it's a very unmumsnet thing but can I send a virtual (((((Hug))))). Loneliness is brutal and I think the lockdown is incredibly unfair on single people. I actually wish they'd made some sort of exceptions for single people.
I've offered my spare room to my mum but at the moment she's saying no to it.

And swine flu killed far less than initially predicted because an anti viral drug was found quickly -tamiflu
OMG I didn't know that bit. I assumed Tamiflu had been around for a while. I had a close call with swine flu. I'll count my blessings

Was there not an inherent contradiction in the hand washing/herd immunity approach? Were we supposed to get it or not? if so, why bother with the hand washing? who benefitted from that when the vulnerable were advised to isolate?

Who benefits from that is everyone who will recover only if they have treatment - oxygen, ventilators. If there are more cases than the nhs can deal with at a time then more people die. The point is to ensure too many didn't get it at once, which inevitably would have happened if people hadn't modified their behaviour - the numbers would have continued to grow exponentially for longer to vastly higher levels. The shielding is try to make sure those most likely to need treatment don't get it - ideally ever, or before treatments might be developed or at least there's more facilities.

I think too much fear is being spread around Coronavirus and not enough about other things such as not treating people who have other illnesses eg cancer, isolation creating and exacerbating mental health problems and domestic violence, economic issues causing poverty related health and other problems.

So I don't feel that we are being encouraged to look at things in a balanced and reasonable way. It's not possible for all of us to avoid the virus until a vaccine is found and for the vast majority of us that is not going to be a problem. We are self isolating to protect the vulnerable - but only from Coronavirus. We are at the same time increasing risk to the vulnerable and to the rest of society at the same time for all sorts of other stuff as I have mentioned above.