4 ms·
Brit here: I'm not a fan of Dominic's government, but the response seems to be well motivated by a series of reasonable arguments. As I understand it: 1. We e
by nmca 7y ago
Brit here:
I'm not a fan of Dominic's government, but the response seems to be well motivated by a series of reasonable arguments. As I understand it:
1. We either get herd immunity via infection or cure/end every case of the virus in the world. They discard the latter as impossible given the infection rate and forecast time-to-vaccine.
2. The counterfactual/needless damage done will be deaths due to NHS capacity saturation, which is a function of (maximum simultaneously infected) - (nhs capacity at that time).
3. Most controversially, they argue that people are going to be shit at implementing isolation policies of the needed severity, in the particular sense that the effectiveness of isolation measures will drop over time. That seems quite likely to me, having met some humans before. Hard to tell / interested in studies if anyone can point to some.
4. As a consequence of these things, the goal is to pass severe measures later than now (but perhaps at a relative point in time similar to italy's) such that during the period of these measures many young people will be sitting out the infection without passing it on, and the infection rate will fall to avoid saturating the NHS.
Or, put another way, they are going to do everything the US is doing but in about 7-14 days, as opposed to now, because the limited period of effective social isolation will hit a more high-growth period, and more young people will be sitting it out and becoming immune.
This doesn't sound super-obviously wrongheaded to me. It's unclear what the plan in the US is. Lockdown for ever? Lockdown-till-cure? Lockdown till herd immunity is pretty equivalent to the UK strategy, and seems likely to be the outcome. But herd immunity takes longer to achieve the earlier you start measures.
- balola 7y agoIt's a gamble of whether this virus will persist like flu, in an era of mobility, pandemics are almost inevitable.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoThere's also no guarantee immunity will last long enough to be effective, or that the virus won't be a moving target like flu. Conversely, buying time with isolation makes the odds of a treatment more likely. There won't be a vaccine until next year, but various other possible medical interventions are already being considered and tested.
- DanBC 7y agoThe bits that are concerning are that we don't know if people will develop immunity after having covid-19; and any involvement from Cummings because he's employed literal eugenicists.
- mantap 7y agoThe problem with their thinking is that isolation shouldn't mean you can't go outdoors. The virus is very unlikely to spread outdoors except with very close personal contact. What it does mean is that food should be delivered wherever possible and people should not use public transport. So their thesis that people will get tired of it is built on a faulty assumption.
- notahacker 7y agoI believe their thesis is that people will get tired of not socialising in groups. At this time of year people aren't missing outdoors so much as the pub, cafe, restaurant, office etc.
- sarhus 7y agoYou might want to read this: https://giorgio.gilest.ro/2020/03/12/the-uk-strategy-of-fighting-covid-19/ https://giorgio.gilest.ro/2020/03/12/the-uk-strategy-of-figh...
- nmca 7y agoThat is indeed a good summary, thanks!
- specialist 7y agoThank you. This is the first I've read about waves of infection. What I gleened: UK government is concerned that China may experience a second wave of infection once the isolation efforts are lifted. So the UK govt is hoping to have a single, much slower wave. I also like this article's assessment of the UK's strategy: tough choices based on data of uncertain quality.
- corford 7y agoGreat summary. This should be upvoted - it covers most of the debate happening in this thread.
- chimprich 7y agoI agree with everything, including not normally being a fan of the government. But this is the most scientific and realistic approach. it's all been done quite sensibly, except maybe communication could have been better. There have been some bold, counter-intuitive and unpopular decisions, which I really hope pay off. My prediction is that at the end of all this the UK will end up with significantly fewer deaths proportionally than most or even all other countries.
- nl 7y agoWe either get herd immunity via infection or cure/end every case of the virus in the world. They discard the latter as impossible given the infection rate and forecast time-to-vaccine. These aren't all the possible outcomes (as South Korea) shows. It's quite possible to slow the spread by intervening hard early. As a consequence of these things, the goal is to pass severe measures later than now (but perhaps at a relative point in time similar to italy's) such that during the period of these measures many young people will be sitting out the infection without passing it on, and the infection rate will fall to avoid saturating the NHS. The issue is that without vast testing it's really difficult to see how deep into the pandemic you are. And this theory is going to require getting the timing exactly right. Too late and it's really really bad. Too early, and it gets hard to keep people isolated later, maybe. This doesn't sound super-obviously wrongheaded to me. Well, it means a bunch more people will get sick quicker, there won't be enough hospital beds and ventilators so lots will die.
- nmca 7y agoWhat do you think will happen longer term in South Korea? (Not meant to be provocative, curious about your forecast)
- tsimionescu 7y ago> Or, put another way, they are going to do everything the US is doing but in about 7-14 days, as opposed to now But aren't 7-14 days from now, given the exponential infection rate, equivalent to waiting until you're in the same situation as Italy? Basically, it sounds like the UK plan is actually to prioritize economic health at the cost of human health, hoping that the NHS is going to fare better when, not if, they get to the same level of infection as China; and disguising all of this with rational sounding rhetoric from epidemiologic scientists willing to take a risk with other people's lives.
- marvin 7y agoThey're going to overshoot. Based on confirmed cases / deaths, the UK doesn't have a correct picture of the current state of the epidemic. Accurately controlling and predicting a currently-exponential function like that is recklessly dangerous. This will not end well. My humble opinion.
- dTal 7y agoAgreed, they are publicly stating 4 weeks behind Italy - that's at least 2 weeks behind the curve.