Why do so many people think that lockdown is about getting rid of the virus?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

At what point did people stop understanding that the purpose of lockdown is to restrict infections, not stop them entirely?

Why are some people saying they're willing to lockdown 'until the virus is gone'? How have they got the idea that that's possible?

[Deelish75]

The reason the increase in transmission rate in Germany is worrying is because once R goes above 1, the numbers of people with the virus increase exponentially and it becomes more likely that services will be overwhelmed.

The increased transmission is worrying but hopefully the test, track and trace system will help to keep on top of that in Germany (and hopefully here when it gets up and going).

If many of us had it in December then we would have seen a vast increase in deaths in December and January.

Is it possible that in December and January it was a weaker strain therefore it didn't cause a huge amount of deaths.? Then when people started coming back from Northern Italy it has mutated and it caused all the deaths that we've just seen?
Also I had flu back in January, I am certain it was flu but it didn't wipe me out like the flu I had at the end of 2017. Since then on the radio I've heard two doctors talking about this season's flu strain being quite weak. Could it be that people who died back in December, January and February had their deaths recorded as "with flu" but it was actually "with Covid"

This is just me musing/wondering. I genuinely have no idea if this is true.

[Flixsfoilball]

Because I'm fat and diabetic and as much as everyone else seems to think that I'm expendable, I'm not and I'm terrified.

My diabetes and weight gain are both as a result of PCOS which showed itself when I cane off the pill after many years - I'm working on the weight and my diabetes is well controlled so without the virus I have a good few decades in me yet, with it I'll probably be in a sticky situation so I'm not prepared to take the risk until more is done in terms of tracking and tracing, the R number is significantly down and more is known about herd immunity. I know it won't be eliminated but I want the smallest risk possible

The fact is I don't need to go out and about, I can do my secure job entirely from home and I have a decent sized house and garden

[TabbyMumz]

One of the slides on the cobra meeting today said only 21%of icu beds are filled with covid patients. So we are well under capacity at hospitals now.

[merrymouse]

One of the slides on the cobra meeting today said only 21%of icu beds are filled with covid patients. So we are well under capacity at hospitals now.

Because we have been living under previously unimaginable restrictions for weeks.

We don't know what the effect of lifting restrictions will be, which is why it is so important that the testing tracking and tracing system gets going.

[CorianderLord]

Some people are thick, others just mean until the danger has passed

[jobhunter7]

At what point did people stop understanding that the purpose of lockdown is to restrict infections, not stop them entirely?

Because perhaps that is what people want. The government has changed tack about some things. They may change again.

Why are some people saying they're willing to lockdown 'until the virus is gone'? How have they got the idea that that's possible?

Other countries have actually managed to do this - if not eradicate if completely, extinguish it within their borders such as NZ.

[MsWarrensProfession]

Best estimate based on a whole range of different studies is that the infection fatality rate for the whole population is between 0.5% and 1% as opposed to about 0.1% for seasonal flu. So much more dangerous, but not Ebola/SARS level terrifying, and with that average ranging between about 10% for the over eighties and virtually nil for the under ones.
Here’s an interesting graph showing the impact on death rates for each age group. Bear in mind that
A) the weekly numbers for the under 14s are tiny and volatile
B) this is the impact on deaths when less that 10% of the population have contracted the disease - if you increase it up to 50/60/70% then you get some terrifying numbers.

[CodenameVillanelle]

The death rate from normal flu is less than 1%. The death rate from Covid is much higher

The death rate from normal flu is 0.1%. The death rate from covid is 1% or under.

[jobhunter7]

It is easier to talk about things these things in the abstract - it is of course different when things happen to you or those you care about.

[24hoursfromtulsa]

Not sure if this has been posted before as I've not read the whole thread, but this link is very interesting. It explains the impact of lockdown, hand washing, masks etc, transmission rates, vaccines etc, with simulators which allow you to adjust the numbers. Very worthwhile read.


ncase.me/covid-19/

[merrymouse]

The death rate from covid is 1% or under.

We don't know what the death rate is because we don't yet have the data.

[MsWarrensProfession]

We have a bunch of data from a variety of different locations and situations where large samples of people have been tested, to make sure that mild or a symptomatic cases are included. Not perfect, not exactly what we’d want in an ideal world, but enough to make a decent judgment that the infection fatality rate is probably a bit less than 1%.

[CodenameVillanelle]

There is enough data to provide a ball park. People were saying the death rate was 4% a few weeks ago and it definitely isn't

[iVampire]

We also don’t know (and will never know) is what the COVID death rate would be in an unexposed population that did not lockdown (and had its health services overwhelmed)

Unless one day there is reliable data from Turkmenistan

[RoosterPie]

Other countries have actually managed to do this - if not eradicate if completely, extinguish it within their borders such as NZ

Yes but it isn’t a long term solution and is only viable if they keep their borders shut or heavily restricted. Which they might but it will come at a huge cost to their economy, a decent chunk of which is tourism.

[jobhunter7]

Well if every country had done it in unison...

[YeOldeTrout]

If most people thought the strategy was merely about restricting infections, then they wouldn't be so much loud hysteria about maintaining 2m at all times nor so much eagerness to 'blame' someone for the fact the virus hasn't gone away. I don't really know what 'most' people think. But the most fearful people are the loudest voices and almost the only voices allowed to be heard. Authoritarianism is in Fashion, too.

[squirrelsmutkins]

Honestly, I’m pretty sick of superior threads like this pouring scorn on people who are afraid.

[flingaling]

3 people in my not large non-patient facing nhs workplace have died and at least two have been in hospital for over a week. It’s easy to make big statements about other people’s hysteria when you’re not affected...yet

Completely agree with this.

[jobhunter7]

And NZ are not the only country to do this.

[Quartz2208]

iVampire we could work it out based on the case fatality rate and the percentage of the population that had it
We will only I think get a rough CFr but at the moment it does seem to range between 0.5 to 1%

@jobhunter7 yes every country would have done. Even then zoonotic viruses are difficult to eradicate as well as can pop up in clusters. We have only every eradicated smallpox. Even the bubonic plague picks up 7 or so cases a year in the US
We would need full uptake of the vaccine (if developed) to eradicate it now
NZ don’t have it now but unless they completely shut borders down until a vaccine it might pop up again

[jobhunter7]

And back to the original question, we are a democracy. And you may or not like the way our electoral system works, but the government is supposed to represent our will...

Although admittedly a number of authoritarian regimes have shown how effective they are at managing this crisis.

[nellodee]

R above 1, growth. R below 1, virus declines. Aim: keep virus below 1. End result: Fewer and fewer cases.

People are not being stupid by thinking the aim is reducing the amount of the virus in circulation. It may not be the aim, but it is certainly the end result. There are two other results. The virus could increase. This is unacceptable, because any increase will be exponential. The other possibility is an R of precisely 1 and a steady amount of cases. If this is the aim (and it's a bizarre aim) then surely it would be better to be at a steady amount of low cases, rather than a steady amount of high cases?

[steppemum]

Could it be that people who died back in December, January and February had their deaths recorded as "with flu" but it was actually "with Covid"

quite possibly, but there just weren't enough of them.

And I say it again. I probably would be fine, so would dh and my dc (probably) But I'm not ready to lose my parents who have years of good life left, but would be high risk for Covid. Nor my asthmatic best friend, nor my heart transplant neice.

The trouble is, that 1% of the population is a lot of people. Truly a lot of people. Are you happy for them all to die?

[nellodee]

There is the alternative of having an oscillating R, but since cases rise faster than they fall, this would be counterproductive. An on/off lockdown is only a suitable option in the absence of more ability to fine tune the flow of increase/decrease.