Quote wrencat1873="wrencat1873"It's not often that you and I agree but, you are absolutely right.
The vulnerable need protecting (isolating) along with their carers but, healthy under 50's need to keep working, spending and carrying on and on this issue, I believe that the government's strategy is wrong.
The most worrying aspect with the current guidelines on isolation etc is that there is no exit strategy and just as soon as movement and social gatherings is allowed to increase, we could well end up back to square one.'"
Actually, our strategy is designed precisely to help prevent that. Anyone claiming 'Boris has cocked it up' isn't paying attention. For a start, Boris hasn't planned the strategy, experts in this field have.
Singapore, Taiwan and others - including China - have done a wonderful job of locking down and preventing the spread. That's great, well done, but exactly as you say - when thing start moving again and some bugger pops up with CV19 - they're back to square one. This is a novel virus, therefore our immune systems simply have nothing to work with until a vaccine is out there, unlike the common flu or the common cold which is familiar to our systems at a genetic level.
The UK's strategy is bold, and herd immunity plays a big part. Patrick Vallance has confirmed this in a number of interviews but the problem is our society and certainly our media cannot handle the fact some people will die who may have otherwise survived.
We are allowing the virus to spread to a certain point, monitoring the numbers and gradually tightening restrictions to manage the spread. This serves two purposes: to 'flatten the curve' and minimise the peak impact to the NHS at any single time, but also to allow the virus to penetrate to a reasonable degree. The journalists who claim measures have tightened due to 'pressure' or 'mistakes' haven't been paying attention or are politically motivated. It's part of a staged strategy and a total lockdown is next. This has been made clear several times and at press conferences: timing is everything.
If we allowed the working-age population to carry on as normal the NHS would be massively overwhelmed this time next week and death rates would surge. Remember it's not just the elderly, it's people with compromised immune systems, it's diabetics, it's those on immunosuppressants - there are many at high risk. There are also many serious and some fatal cases with no previous ailments, although at a lower rate.
It's estimated up to 60%+ of the population could become infected. Of those, probably 99ish% will survive. But 1-2% of 60%/40 million is still huge at 400-800,000 deaths. Some may have died anyway being mostly the elderly and with pre-existing conditions, but that's still a big number. Of the survivors, some will still require ICU hospital treatment and suffer terribly, some will never truly recover due to lung damage.
Now here's the key point. Let's say in 3 months we emerge into the sunlight. 40-60% have had it and are now immune, and new cases have disappeared. Then a few people fly in with CV19. Right now the R0 of CV19 is between 2-4 which leads to a rapid and escalating spread as we are seeing, but if we have around 60% of the population already immune the R0 becomes 1 or less. No rapid spread, no overwhelming pressure on the NHS. THAT is why we didn't lock down immediately, and why our strategy - although it requires short-term pain - is better in the long run.
Oh, and STAY AT HOME. I'm on day 8 of isolation. It ain't so bad.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7c71/b7c715dbd70e06357b39398794fa3c15556f21a9" alt="CHEERS icon_cheers.gif"