If a second wave is inevitable could we get it out of the way now.....

[Mallowmarshmallow]

It seems a second wave is fairly inevitable....scientifically, is it an option to get it over and done with now the hospitals seem to be under less pressure....?

(I realise this might be a totally stupid question...)

I think this too. It’s also at a time where normal flu etc is low so surely a better time for a peak than later in the winter? Who knows though.

It is not a stupid question.

A second wave was inevitable and once the current measures are slowly eased, the NHS should be able to treat. Nightingales will be used too.

Hospitals are under immense pressure. HDUs, post op critical care units, theatre recovery areas and operating theatres have been repurposed as Covid-19 wards. Staff are working in unfamiliar areas. Staff are getting ill... The NHS will buckle under another surge.

Although there’s no such thing as a stupid question (apart from “should we inject disinfectants”. That was pretty stupid... )

There are still issues with PPE, testing availability/accessibility for care workers and their families, etc. Surely it would be best to try and postpone the second wave until we have sufficient stockpiles of necessary equipment to ensure people's safety.

I'm always confused by what people mean by 'second wave'? Do people mean just another peak, after the first one? Or do they mean a mutation and a new strain of virus as in 'the second wave' of Spanish Flu? The latter isn't inevitable is it? Or is it?

But your presupposing that you can 'get it over with'. The virus will still be here after we end lock-down, their is no avoiding it until we get a vaccine because their is no proof getting the virus makes you immune from it.

The latter isn't inevitable is it? Or is it?

The latter is impossible to predict, prevent or delay. I think the OP was referring to the former tho.

I think the point is that we need to use this time to ensure we are properly equipped with ppe, spare nhs capacity, tests and tracing ability. Then slowly lift the lockdown so that the numbers remain stable rather than rising significantly.

A second peak is no more inevitable than the first was. With proper measures in place we can keep the numbers low for an incredibly long time, possibly indefinitely.

I'm not sure what the solution is really. I wish we did.
@WiseUpJanetWeiss this is not true everywhere. Where I live in the south west, the people I know who work for the NHS are saying it is actually really quiet, and I've read similar posts on mn reporting similar.. obviously this isn't true for all hospitals but many aren't busy at all because loads of wards turned in to covid wards and operations cancelled etc... so they over prepared (understandably) and now many are really quiet.
Still don't know if that means a second peak should happen now or not though.

We need to keep the numbers as low
As Possible - So many people have died - loads! We need to make sure it's curbed as much as possible, then, when we come out of lock down, we need to track and trace those affected with those they've come into contact with to eradicate as much as possible whilst we're finding a vaccine

well we cant all get it now, the hospitals will have no capacity , people will go off sick even thinking they have the virus

near me the hospital is 2/3 full

Op a third,fourth and fifth wave is pretty much gonna happen

Incidentally, anecdotally from a handful of friends who work in our local surrounding hospitals our situation in the south east has been similar to that mentioned in the south west.

They were over prepared (understandably) discharged case loads and have, throughout, been sat in offices with little work to do awaiting the crisis to hit....

we need a steady stream not a sudden hit

We need to keep numbers just below max capacity, theres no way this virus can be contained through indefinite lockdown. So to be fair all the people who are stretching the regulations are perhaps helping us flatten the second curve a bit?!

I think the problem is that they've provided more beds but not more staff, so while it might seem quieter in the main hospital, it's not like staff are twiddling their thumbs. A friend works in a hospital in a related area and said that things are a little bit quieter, but there were a lot of staff vacancies anyway, and there are also a number of staff off either ill, or isolating because they or someone in their family is ill (with a cough/cold, or possibly Cv, they don't know).

So, while it'd depend from area to area, they don't have spare capacity to cope with a sudden new wave of cases.

There are new guidelines now, on how the virus is spreading, that have to be met before they'll open things up again. We just have to be patient, and that way we will save lives that might otherwise be lost if we rush too early.

I'm always confused by what people mean by 'second wave'? Do people mean just another peak, after the first one? Or do they mean a mutation and a new strain of virus as in 'the second wave' of Spanish Flu? The latter isn't inevitable is it? Or is it?

Yes another peak but the virus has already mutated into three strains and so far more people have gone on to die from each new strain so it’s a concern it’s mutating to be deadlier. It’s likely to the virus won’t infect so many for a while because people will continue social distancing as they are concerned and also we are entering the summer. However, we have flu season several months ahead and at a time where we are less likely to be able to be outdoors. So the combination of being indoors as well as bored with social distancing (after all, numbers are greatly lower so why continue especially with Christmas and it being a sociable time of year...) are likely to see another peak and we will also have people potentially getting flu at the same time.

What we want is one continuous line on the graph so it’s evenly spread out rather than a massive hit at any one time.

People stretching the regulations means it takes longer to get to a low number of cases which means we stay locked down longer, that's all

The plan is to get numbers of cases down and then to keep R below 1 through range of mechanisms including some social distancing and a test and trace process

Do that and there is no second wave

All we get from breaking rules is a longer lockdown and more deaths

The longer we can delay a second wave, the more chance that we will have a viable vaccine developed. In which case, there need never be a second wave at all, if we can roll out the vaccine into mass production.
Human clinical trials started on the Oxford vaccine a few days ago, with a possible start date of September if it proves safe and effective. So there’s potentially everything to gain by delaying a second wave.

What if we were actually running the second wave through now, albeit slowly. This may be the crucial part that is being missed by the media frenzy and competitive inter country league tables. Perhaps an extended single wave, completed by late Autumn.

Rather a wave now and another in the summer than next winter. With flights in and out of the country it will keep coming until we reach herd immunity or until we have a reliable vaccine.

So now and then again in the summer in manageable waves so the NHS can cope...

Will Italy/Spain etc have a second wave when they open their borders - at the moment Spain has just moved from harsh lock down to our form of lock down

Our hospital is very quiet. That's good but also other people are waiting for other treatment. It's a difficult call to make.

I don’t really understand the whole, you can’t be immune v the new fifty million antibody tests the government has apparantly ordered.

For me it would indicate you do get immunity, otherwise why test fo antibodies. That would be simply stupid. No one would have antibodies.

So assuming you do develop anti bodies and do become immune for a period, which is the only rational assumption to make, then yes, the second peak would be better now, before flu season kicks in.

It appears @Bluntness100 that some people do have antibodies although differing levels, which could mean they still have enough to ward off a second infection of the same virus (but they may not). However, we do know that some people in China had the B strain and recovered but have since been infected with the C strain so that very strongly suggests that it’s possible to be immune to one strain but that immunity doesn’t give immunity to the other two or it’s possible they didn’t have enough/any antibodies after first catching it. In six months the virus has already mutated into three strains and it will keep mutating. What’s also a concern is the organ damage the virus does and repeated bouts of the virus on the same damaged organs is not good for anyone.