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...)

Lunar 😱

Those working on the front line, need a break from the continuous pressure.

Many hospitals are incredibly quiet due to all the elective work being cancelled. The problem is going to come when we try to catch up the back log.

@duffledaisy I work in paediatrics . We've all been sitting twiddling our thumbs for weeks.

Is there some reason why there would be a second peak but not a third, and a fourth? Each time the infection rate would rise to a level where we would have to lockdown again, and it would be a terrible seesaw of growing illness followed by economic shutdown.

As far as we have been told, the only way to 'get it over with' through infection is to reach about 60 %, ie herd, immunity. We don't know yet what kind of immunity people gain after infection. Also, if we tried to reach 60% immunity through a series of peaks and lockdowns it would probably take years, we would more likely have a vaccine first. Herd immunity through infection would also mean many more deaths. The govt are now stating that they are aiming to achieve herd immunity through a vaccine. So they are trying to beat the infection rate down to a level where we can ease restrictions and with a new 'package' of restrictions and measures, keep it suppressed at a lower level till then.

I don't know if we can prevent further peaks, it partly depends on public compliance and may not be possible even with that, but officially, avoiding them is the policy. I hope they can lay out to people why that will be much better for the economy and for health, because to have a chance we need to end this first phase of lockdown with R as low as we can reasonably get it, and then persist with other measures. What happens if we never get a vaccine I have no idea.

Each wave or peak will see many, many deaths. How many more people do we want to see die unnecessarily for the sake of those who just want to 'get it over with'? And huge numbers of deaths really will do shit all for our economy, I can tell you....

OP be careful what you wish for.
The next statistic could be one of your loved ones. Or even you
I despair 😡

@elephantsumbrellas yes - I think we're talking about the same thing. What I meant really was that in the NHS we only have capacity for one thing now...a second wave OR getting back to a semi normal NHS - we can't do both. If people want a second wave to 'get it over with' they need to accept limited healthcare access.

We run at 99% capacity in winter anyway. Apparently people are fine with that. Second peak in autumn ...excellent

Does the poster who said about same people getting infections with different strains have a link to that? I haven't read that.

I am concerned that Boris coming back today will be told it's the economy that's more important and risk a 'second wave ' of infections with lifting restrictions too soon.
I've no idea , but it seems this is the way it's going : it's a balancing act but I'm sure the money men are getting twitchy and the economy has to also keep going in order to keep the nhs going too! I can see all sides.
Whatever happens I wouldn't want to be a politician just now!

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?

The second wave of the Spanish flu wasn't a mutation, it was all H1 N1.

The second wave of Spanish flu is thought to have killed more people than the first.

Yes it is inevitable unless we stay in lockdown for the rest of eternity.

There are things that can be done to mitigate things, eg in Croatia you cannot travel outside of your 'county' (no idea how it works if you have to do that because you are a Dr) so theoretically you could open up a county and keep the ones around closed so that the 2nd wave is just in that one county.

Obviously it's fairly represive to do that and in the UK we often work or study outside the county where we live and London, well if yu just had to stay in London you would have millions of people so it's imprtactical.

What we really need is an antibody test that is acurate and to know if we get immunity from having the disease.

There are some fascinating lectures on Youtube, Chris witty did one about pandemics 2 years ago and I watched another, from a US scientist who's name I can't remember but he was saying that the first flu you encounter after birth sets a blueprint for how your body responds to other flu strains. So the elderly people in 1918 had all been exposed to an earlier H1N1 strain and so had immune systems that could cope with the mSpanish flu, it was the young adults who had not been exposed to it who were worst hit.

This is far from a stupid question and is one of the most important questions no one is considering. Going by what happened in the 1918-1921 flu epidemic which killed around 50 million the first wave in early 1918 had a mortality rate similar to COVID (less than 1%) and killed mostly the older and vulnerable. The virus then mutated over the 1918 summer into something far deadlier which killed mostly the young and healthy and with a far higher mortality rate. Interestingly those who caught it in the first wave developed some level of resistance so that when they caught it again they were very unlikely to die. Whereas those that caught only the second wave had a much higher mortality rate. For example Denmark got hit by the first and second wave with a mortality rate of less than 1% in each. Whereas Fiji only got hit by the second wave and had a 30% mortality rate.

1dayatatime I think that is already happening. The virus has already mutated from strain A to strains A, B and C and so far each new strain as seen more deaths than the previous one.

The second wave is usually more lethal than the first. We don’t want another wave. We want a steady line without peaks.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

If virus was circulating from October, how do you explain the startling and shocking death spikes over the past few weeks, not just in the UK but all countries that have reported high numbers of cases. The NYC one is particularly astonishing.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

It blows the idea it was around since October completely out of the water... With so many people and disparate countries needing to be in cahoots (USA and Iran ffs!) it even makes anything but the most absurd and insane conspiracy theory explaining this impossible.

The only way your hypothesis could possibly even partially be right is if there was a “much” milder precursor, and therefore essentially a very different illness for all practical purposes.... and you would be making about as much sense as someone in 1918 saying, the Spanish Flu isn’t anything new... it’s been around for years - I even had the flu back in 1915 !... But I’ve seen no convincing evidence that even that is true.

I don't get why lockdown hasn't been stricter as in other countries. If the point is to get the figure as low as possible so we can keep it low with contact tracing, surely it's better to get there as quickly as possible. It feels like its now dragging out and more people are flouting lockdown so its surely becoming ineffective anyway...

The virus has already mutated from strain A to strains A, B and C and so far each new strain as seen more deaths than the previous one.

I don’t believe there is any strong evidence that they are much different in terms of lethality.

I don't get why lockdown hasn't been stricter as in other countries.

I don’t think the strictness of our lockdown has made much, if any, difference. The increased risk of occasionally passing within a few feet of a jogger whilst out for exercise rather than skulking 24/7 in your house, or increased risk involved in driving to the coast a few miles away to go for a socially distanced ramble on a beach as opposed to only going within 100 metres of your home is infinitesimal! The activity that led to the sharp rise back in late Feb and early March has pretty much completely stopped.

The reason we’re worse than many other countries is that continuing intensive social mixing later. Even being a week later would have quadrupled the cases based on an R0 of 2.5 (the estimated transmission rate pre-lockdown).

Horrible choices to have to make at every step.

We are learning more and more about the disease as time goes on so I think that points to keeping a lid on it until we have a better understanding.

The second wave is usually more lethal than the first. We don’t want another wave. We want a steady line without peaks.

It was in 1918 but not in many other cases. The virus will be mutating all the time... out of the trillions of mutations that will be occurring, one particular mutation will only replace the existing strain if it can outcompete it reproductively. Allowing a “slow burn” provides the “oxygen” to help enable the current strain (or a very close variant) to continue in its current form. Only once conditions change to put the current strain under stress (such as near eradication or approaching herd immunity) will it be likely for other variants to develop that will replace the current strain (e.g. because they can evade antibodies or find new ways of transmitting such as via aerosols). That new strain may or may not be more deadly - as long as it can reproduce well, that’s all the counts from a evolutionary perspective!

@WinterCat can you source your statements.

@Derbygerbil there are still many non-essential workplaces open and people often have to travel to them. The rate of new infections is still fairly high. I can't see it getting as low as it should for contact tracing to be effective at this rate.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

There won't be a second wave.

I know no one will believe this post, but when you read the articles in the next few months remember it.

Covid was in the UK by October 2019 at the latest. Deaths that occurred from it were attributed to the flu or pneumonia, because no one knew there was a new virus going around until the reports came out of Wuhan. Then everyone started noticing it and freaking out.

We'll come slowly out of lockdown, there'll be a few more upticks of infection but no other huge peak. Eventually, it'll be found that:
The vast, vast majority of people who get covid don't die from it
It does however have a worrying mechanism that means a person can go from fit and healthy to total shutdown very fast, a mechanism that is deadly for older people or people with illnesses, meaning that while most people are fine, older people and more unwell people are in danger and there's a scary 'Russian roulette' element for younger people (not unlike flu).

The lockdown will be justified as a necessary precaution given a lack of clear information. Sweden will come out of the whole thing looking like the only country with an ounce of sense.

@thedailycarbuncle

How's this prediction worked out for you? Sweden is not doing too well either I believe.

@BlueBlancmange I'm not sure what you mean? What part of what I said isn't correct? Maybe we're both defining 'wave' differently. I'm genuinely confused as to what about my post was wrong.

Yes, I have spotted that this thread started in April, and very interesting it has been to read it in November!

How's this prediction worked out for you? Sweden is not doing too well either I believe

Sweden, despite much lower population densities, now has more cases per 100,000 than UK (source ECDC rolling 24 day data) and their death rate has worsened quite a bit as well.

Viruses tend to spread more quickly in winter. That's true of every virus out there. Numbers will go up and down. But none of that is a 'wave.' The UK death rate isn't even close to half of what it was in the first wave. Higher number of 'cases' is due to higher rates of testing picking up people who don't even have symptoms. If testing were done in the same way as it was done in March/April - almost entirely in hospitals and only on those with symptoms - it would look like covid was hardly present at all.