Why did the government lock down so long the first time?

[IheartNiles]

They’ve never bothered to explain this to the population. We were told 3 weeks in March. No one with any sense will trust that any future 2-3 week lockdown is going to finish on the date stated. If it’s enforced then an end date must be written into law.

The NHS (I work in a London hospital) was coping just fine by a month into the first lockdown - the wards had emptied and we were able to restart elective treatments. But for reasons unexplained to this day the government decided to extend locking down the country from 3 weeks to 4 months, with school children missing education for almost 6 months. It obviously wasn’t an elimination strategy as borders were kept open and then at the end people were encouraged to resume overseas travel.

If they’d stuck with occasional 2-3 week ‘circuit breakers’ at the beginning 1. The NHS would’ve coped 2. Business wouldn’t have gone under 3. We’d be closer to the talked about ‘herd immunity’ 4. year 10-13 education wouldn’t be fucked 5. people wouldn’t be utterly fucked off with it / terrified they’ll lose their jobs/home / mental health shot to pieces - and may have been more willing to comply.

@GoldenOmber but that is simply not true.

Sorry posted too soon!

Herd immunity was recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when it was observed that after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated.

@Youandmeareluckytobeus

First time round wasn't London the area to be very quickly affected? The NHS wasn't coping just fine in other areas after a month. There was no elective surgery in many areas of the country.

Exactly! London was hit hard earlier than the rest of country and seemed to "recover" quicker, especially since a higher proportion of London commuters could work from home due to the nature of their jobs. Covid spread to other regions later, hence why hospitals were still "closed" to other illnesses/diseases into May/June. The reality is that whilst London should have been shut down sooner, other regions were shut down too soon. There was no reason at all why, say, the North West had to be shut down in March when cases were low and hospitals barely had any covid patients (yet still closed down wards, clinics, etc!).

Because t and t can only work at a certain level. And things weren't fine after a few weeks, people were dying in large numbers. Call them stupid but they had a problem with that.

@Bool

If reinfection is super rare - which we have just established - and why a vaccine is possible - why is herd immunity through natural means not possible. I don’t get that argument - it doesn’t make logical sense.

Not saying we should let it race through the population and crash the health system - but a slow controlled spread should be encouraged. And shield those at most risk. The argument is that the longer we let this run on for the more likely those who are shielding will catch it.

Immunisation through having previous caught a disease is VERY different to immunisation via a vaccine. That's a long term medical/scientific fact.

It's easy to look back and think what you would have done because we know much more about the virus compared to March/April. Do you remember the panic about a new surge when people went to the beach, celebrated VE Day, protested? The experts did not know that they wouldn't be a big deal

The empty hospitals and missed treatment for serious illness is a major disgrace that has tragically cost lives. My ds was in hospital over the summer and there were 2 patients including him in a 10 bed ward. There's a post recently where someone was told that HP appointments were only for emergencies. There is something seriously wrong with this policy which should not be going on right now.

The back to school in June policy was a disaster for secondary schools. Vague wording like pupils getting "teacher time" and massively varying provision (due to lack of guidance was a problem) Year 10 and 12 should have gone back full time so they could socially distance at school (subject to staff availability) and the government should have had some education standards set for the other secondary years eg how many hours of study, how many hours of online teaching... I know that someone is going to point out that some people don't have free access to a device or sufficient broadband but most secondary school kids have a smartphone to watch videos and there could have been some way to provide a dongle for school work or print outs to be mailed like some primary schools did. But we have a government who's last priority is investment in education

I think that the government didn't close borders for the same reason that they didn't ask universities to remain closed or online only - they don't want to/can't bail out the affected companies and it's easier to go for a herd immunity by stealth policy and hope for the best when young people go to uni and healthy people go on holidays.

Here is the WHO explaining why naturally acquired herd immunity is a bad idea
www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1

Why short lived naturally acquired immunity doesn't mean that a vaccine will also be short lived immunity...
www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-immunity.html

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/17/covid-reinfections-to-be-expected-as-virus-spreads-say-government-scientists

Reinfection is rare but is something scientists are concerned about. They are discovering as time goes on as it is such a new virus.

The argument is that the longer we let this run on for the more likely those who are shielding will catch it.

No, we kick the can down the road until we have a vaccine which is a far less fatal and more effective way of getting herd immunity.

@user1497207191 exactly! A strategy of letting it run slowly through the population and shield those most at risk. Protect the health service. Regional lockdowns when the health services seem at risk. And that does seem to be what we are doing now.

Because it took so long for cases and deaths to start to reduce. I expected it to have a much quicker effect. This is why I'm sceptical about the idea of a two week "circuit breaker" as I can't see it having any effect.

@Bool

Sorry posted too soon!

Herd immunity was recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when it was observed that after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated.

Yes. TEMPORARILY decreased. That is what we had with measles and smallpox and polio before vaccines - they either hung around at low levels and were endemic, or they came through in epidemic waves every so often.

What we have NOW, with vaccines, is actual herd immunity where the viruses can’t do those things. We don’t have endemic measles in the U.K. We don’t have polio outbreaks every so often.

If we do nothing with Covid, we’ll probably end up with it acting like polio or measles used to. That isn’t ‘herd immunity’ in the sense vaccines give us.

@user1497207191 Immunisation through having previous caught a disease is VERY different to immunisation via a vaccine. That's a long term medical/scientific fact.

Yes but reinfection seems super super rare. We have established that.

Agree that the govt policies were not joined up.

Disagree that we currently have enough evidence that herd immunity will work. Even though there have been few documented cases of reinfection, testing wasn’t and still isn’t great. The risk of pursuing herd immunity is that you create a Wuhan situation which is out of control (with COVID plus winter pressures)?

Also - the time course in different regions was different.

@Bool

If reinfection is super rare - which we have just established - and why a vaccine is possible - why is herd immunity through natural means not possible. I don’t get that argument - it doesn’t make logical sense.

Not saying we should let it race through the population and crash the health system - but a slow controlled spread should be encouraged. And shield those at most risk. The argument is that the longer we let this run on for the more likely those who are shielding will catch it.

I haven’t got a link but it was worked out that a controlled spread would take decades with our current healthcare capacity.

But on the other hand there is speculation that we don’t need herd immunity necessarily and the positive effect on the levels of infection throughout the population start to become obvious at objectively low levels (lowest I’ve seen is 40%).

Plus, there are no plans for shielding in the way you describe. They're not there, they won't happen, care homes in my area are going down again. There isn't a magic shielding tree.

Vulnerable people need to use hospitals and HCPs. In your plan, covid will be rampant in hospitals and there won't be enough well HCPs to treat everyone. One of the many ways this idea is nonsensical.

@GoldenOmber yes but a vaccine only offers temporary protection too!!!! It depends on enough people being vaccinated. We do have outbreaks of measles where we fall below herd immunity levels - when people shy away from the vaccine.

reinfection seems super super rare.

No we haven't established that. Much more research is needed.

@Harehedge and that’s exactly why we need to run this to it’s conclusion QUICKLY and in a controlled manner

@Cornettoninja But on the other hand there is speculation that we don’t need herd immunity necessarily and the positive effect on the levels of infection throughout the population start to become obvious at objectively low levels (lowest I’ve seen is 40%).

Agree. And why I think the north of the country is in for a torrid winter and London will have some level of protection already.

[quote Bool]@GoldenOmber yes but a vaccine only offers temporary protection too!!!! It depends on enough people being vaccinated. We do have outbreaks of measles where we fall below herd immunity levels - when people shy away from the vaccine.[/quote]
No. SOME vaccines offer temporary protection, some offer lifelong protection. It’s the same with naturally-acquired infection. Some diseases you’re (mostly) protected for life, sometimes just for a year or ten years.

We know that Covid immunity seems to last at least a few months, or we’d be seeing loads of it. We don’t know how much longer yet.

@bonbonours

Because it took so long for cases and deaths to start to reduce. I expected it to have a much quicker effect. This is why I'm sceptical about the idea of a two week "circuit breaker" as I can't see it having any effect.

We were working with a different criteria in the spring though. The only positive cases were those who were admitted to hospital, the level of community infections are estimated to have been around 100k a day at its peak. We’re currently at a much lower level of infection now so in theory shouldn’t need as long to get a stranglehold.

Deaths certainly aren’t rising as quickly as they did in the spring which suggests restrictions are working to slow it. We’d also be coming out of a shorter lockdown to measures that weren’t in place when we came out last time. Masks for one were a fairly late development.

Anyway I have been saying this since March and keep getting told I am wrong. And then the Great Barrington paper came out and I breathed a sigh of relief. Anyway time will tell. We will simply see now how badly different areas get hit and my prediction is that London will cope well because it already has a level of herd immunity.

@GoldenOmber I think you are confusing individual level protection with community level protection. I am talking community level protection. Of course at an individual level measles once caught it vaccination against can’t be caught again. But at a community level outbreaks can happen whether herd immunity has happened through vaccination or through natural immunity.

*or vaccinated against