Won’t there just be a second peak?

[Lockdowner13]

Have any countries experienced a second rise due to relaxing lockdown yet?

Surely it’s inevitable?

I’m only not getting it because apart from a weekly trip to Tesco by my husband and a few walks round the block, we barely leave the house or see anyone. When school, nursery, work, social interaction starts up, it will only be a matter of time before people get sick in larger numbers. This week I’ve had close contact with 4 people. Normally we have hundreds of contacts a week... school and nursery, work contacts, other family etc.

I can’t help but think this whole thing started a few months ago with just one person. We are at 1000s now. Restarting the upward trend is gonna be much easier!

Am I missing something? Isn’t it inevitable?

@langclegsinspace One of the best posts I’ve read on here in a long time. I’m amazed by how people are thinking.

Lang yes, agree.

No idea if political will is still there for testing.

Bluntness you do realise that it is estimated that 14 million people in England alone are living with some form of chronic illness. Many prior to corona virus were living and working productively and contributing to our society. You make it sound like it's so simple that the country needs to get back to business and leave the vulnerable to stay at home if that's what they want but it's not just a few thousand people or 1 or 2 million even. Plus their family members who maybe are 100% healthy risk taking the virus home everytime they go out.

Yes to the not testing kids.
The kids with kawasakis have mostly now tested positive or have antibodies so they did have it and many had known exposure via parent etc (or had they infected the parent).
3k may not seem that many under 45 but when you x12 = 36k seems a little more and that is only to get to 60% immunity... We might need 80/90....
Lots of people in these age ranges will have underlying conditions tbh im surprised many 40yo are completely healthy as
Pcos
T2 diabetes (after pregnancy)
High bp again after possible pg.)
I think 1/100 or so are asthmatic alone
I think there are definitely more 40+ parents at our primary than 20 and probably 30yo.
Tbh by y6 probably almost all parents are 40.

And i agree we dobt have to accept that the gov will open up again with such high numbers still. Other countries di not do this.
We arent even tracking the 4k cases a day we do have what chancw would we have to control it with everyone about again.

I live in Germany where the strategy is not to lockdown nationally - unless exponential growth gets totally out of hand -

but to lockdown locally if a region / city / town / institution gets more than 50 new cases / 100,000 population within 7 days

That's already happened in 2 towns where infections were centred around the slaughterhouse
and other lockdowns of 6 care homes

However, 99% of the country continues to relax measures

There will almost certainly be more local hotspots in future,
but the plan is that the mass testing we have here will spot it in plenty of time for lockdowns

Bigchoc yes that's the situation our government would aim for the UK to get to. Our new cases are still too high in many areas for contact testing and tracing to be effective in controlling.

From everything I have read, children can pass it on but it's much less likely than adults passing it on.

When it comes to reopening schools we should consider the age range - primary, secondary or nursery. Are primary and nursery age children less infectious than secondary pupils? On the other hand, are primary and nursery age children less able to physically distance than secondary age pupils? What difference would these things make?

We need to stop looking for magic bullets and start having grown up conversations about risk and how to mitigate it.

I'm dismayed at the number of people who have rationalised to themselves that all these deaths are not so important because it's mostly old people or those with 'underlying conditions'.

To be clear I am not just dismayed by these people I am disgusted by them and I think they are utter fucking scum

I'm dismayed at the number of people who have rationalised to themselves that all these deaths are not so important because it's mostly old people or those with 'underlying conditions'.

To be clear I am not just dismayed by these people I am disgusted by them and I think they are utter fucking scum

SAME.

aridane are you comparing that correctly? Of the under 70s who died, who did not have existing health issues?

There is an explanation of why some children do not pass it on.
In another coronavirus nl63 they found lower viral load if they had another infection. The boy in one study also had i think flu. So meaning that possibly how easily a person passes it on varies and so larger studies needed. Bearing in mind in summer people are less likely to have multiple infections -more infectious..

12 per cent of the UK population have asthma, that's just one health condition, the percentage of people with no underlying health conditions is perhaps not that large? statistics.blf.org.uk/asthma

... And 25 per cent have high blood pressure: www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-combating-high-blood-pressure/health-matters-combating-high-blood-pressure

@Bluntness100

Not necessarily, it is starting to look more like children don’t spread it and the science is correct.

Can you provide a link please?

We need to find, test and isolate everyone with symptoms. We need to trace all their contacts and quarantine them. This is the only strategy that has worked anywhere in the world so far, regardless of any lockdown measures.

Yes.

Test. Trace. Quarantine at out-of-home quarantine sites, NOT self-isolation in people's homes.

Open things up the way they have done in HK and Taiwan (limiting numbers inside any room, 2m queuing, spacing stuff out, moving operations outside whenever possible, masks and hand alcohol as COMPULSORY.

This is then the plan for society until we get the vaccine rolled out.

@ChavvySexPond you are agreeing with yourself there under the same name?

@Bluntness100 can I ask, how you know who had a high viral load? Not goading, just don't remember reading this anywhere.

Whilst I understand the ‘shield the vulnerable and get everyone else back to work’ theory, if you choose to just shield the extremely vulnerable (those identified by NHS) there is a large proportion of the country who are high risk and have the exact underlying health conditions that most people who get Coronavirus die with. So if you keep them in as well then that’s a huge amount of the British workforce!!

The problem with saying “children don’t spread the virus” is that because we haven’t been testing early enough the evidence isn’t there either way.
However, I teach in a 1.5 entry primary school and I was off the week lockdown began with symptoms of covid, I was 1 of 5. Non of us were tested as we were ‘well enough’ to stay home, but non of us could walk we were that badly infected. I was being monitored by the oncall dr, who was certain this was covid, via the phone.
I have been in hospital for less than what I was suffering it was awful.
Geographically we work in the same school but live quite dispersed. All of us a certain we got it from school, we are unlikely to have got it from each other as we all became ill at the same point. Statistically we don’t count yet if we did it would point st children spreading, and school staff being at risk of high viral load.

how you know who had a high viral load

The viral load issue is all over the media, any scientists and universities Have confirmed it. It was even mentioned at one of the Press conferences

we are unlikely to have got it from each other as we all became ill at the same point

This makes no sense. Unless the only five adults you all came into contact with was each other. Otherwise clearly there would be another adult who infected you all and could have mild symptoms or none. That’s if you all actually did have it. Which is probably unlikely. Because if you’re all healthy it means you were all in close physical contact with the same person for a prolonged period, and caught a high load of the virus to be that ill.

In addition no one said no children spread it at all. Just the transmission was low Logically it would seem If five of you had it ar once, then you were all in contact with another person, likely an adult, say someone else at school who had it.

Or you did not have it. Like probably ninety percent of the population. Or just one of you did.

” In addition no one said no children spread it at all. Just the transmission was low.”

Lower than adults or low? How low is “low”? The problem with Covid19 is that it’s easy to spread hence why I’m asking if children transmit at a truly low rate or lower than adults. I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence on what you’ve stated.

Probably but this economy will not survive if lockdown continues so I think everyone would rather take their chances.

I’m feeling quite nervous waiting for Boris’ speech today .

It’s illogical that Coronavirus can be spread on door handles and not by children.

Children might have it asymptotically or mildly and are fine (only 12 under 20s have died in England) but if they are carrying it home to their parents- where is is normal to be in very close prolonged contact with children, including kissing and cuddling them- then even if the child is only shedding a little, the viral load is still going to build up surely? Schools aren’t closed to protect children, but to protect their teachers and parents.

And I believe I read that at least 25% of the population has an “underlying health condition”. That the number who are young, healthy and have died is very low isn’t really reassuring.