5 ms·

This is a smart observation. The UK is now taking the conservative view because it's the long term view, that this will likely become a recurring seasonal virus

by wyclif 7y ago

This is a smart observation. The UK is now taking the conservative view because it's the long term view, that this will likely become a recurring seasonal virus (or a one-time virus that keeps knocking on your door until you get it), and therefore there's not much point in a national "lockdown" to "stop" the virus, because as soon as a nation relaxes its lockdown the virus will simply pick up right where it left off. Herd immunity is the goal for the UK government; they are explicitly saying they want ~60% of the population to get the virus. The only concern for the UK government is to space out the rate of infection so as to avoid overloading hospitals. So they are banning large gatherings, but not doing a lockdown per se, if that makes sense. Slow the pace, but let it continue. (They may do a strategic lockdown later if necessary to flatten the curve, but right now is certainly NOT the time to do a lockdown, according to their strategy, because at this stage it would be motivated by an attempt to "stop" the virus rather than an attempt to flatten the curve.)

henrikschroder 7y ago
> therefore there's not much point in a national "lockdown" to "stop" the virus, because as soon as a nation relaxes its lockdown the virus will simply pick up right where it left off. I haven't seen anyone address this concern among the people who think the UK's strategy is insane. Yes, if you lock down society, you will halt the spread of the virus dramatically. But for how long? When do you lift the lock down? When it's died out in your country? How long will that take? What if it hasn't died out elsewhere? Are you going into another lock down right on the heels of the first one? And how do you get people to comply with it? Hell, there's plenty of people in the US who are completely convinced that the coronavirus is a hoax or a conspiracy or something something Trump Democrats Obama Liberal But Her Emails. Less than two weeks ago President Trump called the thing a hoax! The UK strategy takes this into account and rolls with it. They know it's going to infect a majority of the population eventually, so let's just get it over with as quickly as possible, while protecting the vulnerable in society, and then herd immunity kicks in and after that your country is protected no matter what other countries do.
- dathinab 7y ago
  But no lock down strategy is about halting the virus! They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Current data show that dath ratio in case of slow spread can be reduced to 1%, potential even less. While with overload it's more like 5% and with collapsing overload even potentially more. Also work slowing the number of total infected people without usable medicine against it can potentially be drastically reduced. Especially if we find some usable but imperfect medicine in the near time which reduces ICU cases. Also let's remember 1918: The first wave killed the old, the second wave killed the young, the third wave killed without discrimination. I.e. we are still in the first wave, it's not impossible that a mutation occurred which makes it especially deadly against the young (through maybe quite unlike). Just consider what happens if that overlaps with the UK plans and they notice it to late. It would be a lost generation.
  - henrikschroder 7y ago
    > They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Again, the load on the health care system depends completely on the demographics of the people who get infected. By isolating and quarantining people in risk groups, the load on the health care system will be much lower. The gamble is this: By letting the virus spread indiscriminately through the part of the population that is not at risk, the load on the health care system will be manageable, the death rate will be nowhere near the current measured ones, and once the virus has passed, you have herd immunity in your population. But if you argue for harsh lock down of everything now, you are also gambling. You are gambling that you can delay the spread until there is a vaccine, without knowing how far away a vaccine is. You are gambling that all the other countries get a handle on the virus, without knowing if they will.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      Are there any examples of countries isolating vulnerable people (elderly, obese, breathing problems, smokers)? It doesn't seem like that is actually viable at all.
Aperocky 7y ago
Except if it became seasonal there's going to be vaccines (with my faith in the medical research). And if the death rate is as high, everyone is going to get it. Making the sacrifice that british public is going through now senseless. Also, it becoming seasonal could also be a self fulfilling prophecy due to its policy.
- nojvek 7y ago
  Yeah this basically reads to me as UK doesn’t give a shit about it’s seniors since death is inevitable. Once a vaccine that works is out I’m sure most of the world will get it. The lockdown is all about preventing (early) deaths.
  - wyclif 7y ago
    That is a complete misreading of what they are trying to do, which is flattening the curve and making sure more people can be treated with the medical resources they can measure and substantiate.
    - CyanBird 7y ago
      > which is flattening the curve You are NOT flattening jack shit by having all your young population become infected!! [0] They are NOT gonna mass transport ALL the elderly population to a far away island and isolate them there, they all are gonna get infected and the NHS is going to collapse because of it There already have been cases documented of people getting infected because of unsealed bathroom toilet pipes on apartment buildings... [1] [0] https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs?t=693 https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs?t=693 [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3050068/coronavirus-your-toilet-how-hong-kong-policy https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/artic...
  - dharma1 7y ago
    A vaccine is 1-2 years away. It's likely the majority will be infected before then. It is unclear if you can continue playing whack-a-mole with quarantine measures for the next 1-2 years. It's possible but unlikely, at least in the West. The UK's gambit is that by timing stricter quarantine measures they can cut the head off the peak, while slowing down spread due to some immunity in the population. This may work if the risk groups can indeed self-isolate for 4 months, and if more ventilators can be manufactured at speed. It will still be devastating. It will be interesting to see what happens in China after people return to work. Either way, I think we are looking at bans on international travel to continue for many months to come.
joe_the_user 7y ago
This approach is definitely negligent to the point of criminality. There's no practical way to keep younger and healthy people away from older or less-healthy people and once the virus spreads to the less healthy people it will likely spread further. (I've been doing the arithmetic for this stuff all day but here goes). The UK's population is about 66 million. Sixty percent infected is 39,600,000. A 1% death rate (which, per above, you can't escape by "just infect young people" or something, jeesh) implies 396,000 dying. That many people dying, spread out evenly over a year is 1084 people dying per day but 10,840 people arrive sick at hospitals. Which is something the UK surely can't deal with. So with the health care system overwhelmed, the death goes to 5% or more and you have 2 millions deaths, much the WWII casualties etc. Also, the "herd immunity" reasoning is wrong in the sense that we don't cultivate herd immunity to black plague, Ebola or small pox because they are deadly enough that we containment. Covids is in this special deadly "sweet spot" where it doesn't seem deadly enough to isolate in small area but too deadly to allow to run rampant across a city or nation. The answer that's forced on nation is mass city-by-city quarantine. Harsh but China's Wuhan experience was nowhere near the horrors that this "herd immunity" plan promises.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Herd immunity doesn't happen for Ebola because it's not that infectious compared to covid19. Ebola spreads when an infected person coughs up infected blood over someone. That's pretty easy to contain - people don't walk around spreading Ebola with no symptoms. Herd immunity in this case isn't something you choose to cultivate or not. With such an infectious disease you're going to get it sooner or later; that's the UK's point. Trying to wipe it out through self isolation won't be globally 100% effective and if it's not it'll just come back. Ultimately only the population carrying lots of antibodies will end transmission for good.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    With such an infectious disease you're going to get it sooner or later; that's the UK's point. I believe it's mistake to claim that the disease will inevitably become endemic in the fashion of the flu. It certainly reach that level but costs would be massively catastrophic in a multitude of fashions. Oppositely, that of the different nations who've contained the infection show that is possible to eliminate it from a region and so a world-wide effort could eliminate it world wide as well. One factor is that the disease is much more deadly than the early commentators (notably in the Atlantic) believed and aside from making "everyone get infected, OK?" horrific, this gives a strong marker for the disease and a strong incentive to act.

by wyclif 7y ago

henrikschroder 7y ago

> therefore there's not much point in a national "lockdown" to "stop" the virus, because as soon as a nation relaxes its lockdown the virus will simply pick up right where it left off. I haven't seen anyone address this concern among the people who think the UK's strategy is insane. Yes, if you lock down society, you will halt the spread of the virus dramatically. But for how long? When do you lift the lock down? When it's died out in your country? How long will that take? What if it hasn't died out elsewhere? Are you going into another lock down right on the heels of the first one? And how do you get people to comply with it? Hell, there's plenty of people in the US who are completely convinced that the coronavirus is a hoax or a conspiracy or something something Trump Democrats Obama Liberal But Her Emails. Less than two weeks ago President Trump called the thing a hoax! The UK strategy takes this into account and rolls with it. They know it's going to infect a majority of the population eventually, so let's just get it over with as quickly as possible, while protecting the vulnerable in society, and then herd immunity kicks in and after that your country is protected no matter what other countries do.

dathinab 7y ago
But no lock down strategy is about halting the virus! They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Current data show that dath ratio in case of slow spread can be reduced to 1%, potential even less. While with overload it's more like 5% and with collapsing overload even potentially more. Also work slowing the number of total infected people without usable medicine against it can potentially be drastically reduced. Especially if we find some usable but imperfect medicine in the near time which reduces ICU cases. Also let's remember 1918: The first wave killed the old, the second wave killed the young, the third wave killed without discrimination. I.e. we are still in the first wave, it's not impossible that a mutation occurred which makes it especially deadly against the young (through maybe quite unlike). Just consider what happens if that overlaps with the UK plans and they notice it to late. It would be a lost generation.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  > They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Again, the load on the health care system depends completely on the demographics of the people who get infected. By isolating and quarantining people in risk groups, the load on the health care system will be much lower. The gamble is this: By letting the virus spread indiscriminately through the part of the population that is not at risk, the load on the health care system will be manageable, the death rate will be nowhere near the current measured ones, and once the virus has passed, you have herd immunity in your population. But if you argue for harsh lock down of everything now, you are also gambling. You are gambling that you can delay the spread until there is a vaccine, without knowing how far away a vaccine is. You are gambling that all the other countries get a handle on the virus, without knowing if they will.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Are there any examples of countries isolating vulnerable people (elderly, obese, breathing problems, smokers)? It doesn't seem like that is actually viable at all.

Aperocky 7y ago

Except if it became seasonal there's going to be vaccines (with my faith in the medical research). And if the death rate is as high, everyone is going to get it. Making the sacrifice that british public is going through now senseless. Also, it becoming seasonal could also be a self fulfilling prophecy due to its policy.

nojvek 7y ago
Yeah this basically reads to me as UK doesn’t give a shit about it’s seniors since death is inevitable. Once a vaccine that works is out I’m sure most of the world will get it. The lockdown is all about preventing (early) deaths.
- wyclif 7y ago
  That is a complete misreading of what they are trying to do, which is flattening the curve and making sure more people can be treated with the medical resources they can measure and substantiate.
  - CyanBird 7y ago
    > which is flattening the curve You are NOT flattening jack shit by having all your young population become infected!! [0] They are NOT gonna mass transport ALL the elderly population to a far away island and isolate them there, they all are gonna get infected and the NHS is going to collapse because of it There already have been cases documented of people getting infected because of unsealed bathroom toilet pipes on apartment buildings... [1] [0] https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs?t=693 https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs?t=693 [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3050068/coronavirus-your-toilet-how-hong-kong-policy https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/artic...
- dharma1 7y ago
  A vaccine is 1-2 years away. It's likely the majority will be infected before then. It is unclear if you can continue playing whack-a-mole with quarantine measures for the next 1-2 years. It's possible but unlikely, at least in the West. The UK's gambit is that by timing stricter quarantine measures they can cut the head off the peak, while slowing down spread due to some immunity in the population. This may work if the risk groups can indeed self-isolate for 4 months, and if more ventilators can be manufactured at speed. It will still be devastating. It will be interesting to see what happens in China after people return to work. Either way, I think we are looking at bans on international travel to continue for many months to come.

joe_the_user 7y ago

This approach is definitely negligent to the point of criminality. There's no practical way to keep younger and healthy people away from older or less-healthy people and once the virus spreads to the less healthy people it will likely spread further. (I've been doing the arithmetic for this stuff all day but here goes). The UK's population is about 66 million. Sixty percent infected is 39,600,000. A 1% death rate (which, per above, you can't escape by "just infect young people" or something, jeesh) implies 396,000 dying. That many people dying, spread out evenly over a year is 1084 people dying per day but 10,840 people arrive sick at hospitals. Which is something the UK surely can't deal with. So with the health care system overwhelmed, the death goes to 5% or more and you have 2 millions deaths, much the WWII casualties etc. Also, the "herd immunity" reasoning is wrong in the sense that we don't cultivate herd immunity to black plague, Ebola or small pox because they are deadly enough that we containment. Covids is in this special deadly "sweet spot" where it doesn't seem deadly enough to isolate in small area but too deadly to allow to run rampant across a city or nation. The answer that's forced on nation is mass city-by-city quarantine. Harsh but China's Wuhan experience was nowhere near the horrors that this "herd immunity" plan promises.

thu2111 7y ago
Herd immunity doesn't happen for Ebola because it's not that infectious compared to covid19. Ebola spreads when an infected person coughs up infected blood over someone. That's pretty easy to contain - people don't walk around spreading Ebola with no symptoms. Herd immunity in this case isn't something you choose to cultivate or not. With such an infectious disease you're going to get it sooner or later; that's the UK's point. Trying to wipe it out through self isolation won't be globally 100% effective and if it's not it'll just come back. Ultimately only the population carrying lots of antibodies will end transmission for good.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  With such an infectious disease you're going to get it sooner or later; that's the UK's point. I believe it's mistake to claim that the disease will inevitably become endemic in the fashion of the flu. It certainly reach that level but costs would be massively catastrophic in a multitude of fashions. Oppositely, that of the different nations who've contained the infection show that is possible to eliminate it from a region and so a world-wide effort could eliminate it world wide as well. One factor is that the disease is much more deadly than the early commentators (notably in the Atlantic) believed and aside from making "everyone get infected, OK?" horrific, this gives a strong marker for the disease and a strong incentive to act.