What's more important ?

[Lord Tyrion]

To be honest Rod, I read the above as SR read it. I penned a reply but decided not to post up, preferring to see how the 'conversation' developed. You later qualified your post

However, "enough capacity in the NHS..." Is there enough capacity? There's now several Nightingale's and pretty much every hospital has extended its Critical Care Areas. The production of vents and research also continues at pace. Two things; there may well be a second spike, but we don't know how big. Also, what about staffing levels? Staffing levels is, to me, a greater concern. Managing vented patients isn't something you learn in 5 minutes and, ideally, is done on a 1-2-1 basis. And if you're losing staff at the same time... I genuinely don't know how it would pan out.

As for the herd immunity you propose, the govt switched direction away from that when it became obvious it was too costly in terms of the abrupt rise in infection rates. Why will it suddenly become acceptable?

In truth, we don't know if there's enough capacity in the NHS, nor do we know how expensive in lives developing herd immunity would be.

Spain relaxed the lockdown for non-essential workers 2 weeks ago - the need for foodbanks just exploded, and the posts on FB from people needing food or have been threatened with eviction, even though that's illegal during lockdown, are heart breaking. We'll see in the next 2 weeks if that relation causes a second spike.

You're right, lockdown has to end, but its how it ends that's important. And your post above; what we write and how its read can, occasionally, be two different things.

The Nightingale hospitals are largely empty of people. They are ready as a back up but so far not necessary.

I have spoken to a couple of locals this week who work in the big Newcastle hospitals. They have plenty of capacity. They are all geared up, the hospitals are fully focused on covid, but the numbers have not poured in. I don't know how this compares to the rest of the country.

There was a piece yesterday about Dyson's ventilators not being required in the UK. It mentioned that we are currently using half of our ventilators, meaning half are left available.

The above doesn't mean we can all go around hugging people but it does suggest that so far the distancing is suppressing the numbers and the system can hope. (Clearly there may be regional spikes where hospitals are struggling to cope)

 

[User20205]

Appreciate the opportunity to qualify.
My understanding is that there is plenty of capacity, specifically at the nightingale hospitals. I’m not a revisionist, the lock down & the extra capacity have been important tools. The first post was more a comment on 2 polar opposite choices, lift the restrictions or wait for a vaccine. As always the reality is somewhere between the 2.
Herd immunity seemingly wouldn’t have worked 4 weeks ago because of a - lack of capacity b- exposure of the high risk. Now we have capacity, can reserve the most invasive treatment for those that really need it, when they really need it. Though I did read that ventilators may not be the most appropriate treatment for some severe cases.
I’m happy to put my faith in the statistics, these show, in a lower risk population; most cases are asymptomatic, most of those that aren’t are mild, unfortunately a few would need medical attention. If any high risk groups are shielded, this can be managed appropriately?
The issue may come if some high risk individuals don’t want to be shielded.

This isn’t perfect, it does create a two tier society, but what’s the alternative?

 

[pendodave]

Appreciate the opportunity to qualify.
My understanding is that there is plenty of capacity, specifically at the nightingale hospitals. I’m not a revisionist, the lock down & the extra capacity have been important tools. The first post was more a comment on 2 polar opposite choices, lift the restrictions or wait for a vaccine. As always the reality is somewhere between the 2.
Herd immunity seemingly wouldn’t have worked 4 weeks ago because of a - lack of capacity b- exposure of the high risk. Now we have capacity, can reserve the most invasive treatment for those that really need it, when they really need it. Though I did read that ventilators may not be the most appropriate treatment for some severe cases.
I’m happy to put my faith in the statistics, these show, in a lower risk population; most cases are asymptomatic, most of those that aren’t are mild, unfortunately a few would need medical attention. If any high risk groups are shielded, this can be managed appropriately?
The issue may come if some high risk individuals don’t want to be shielded.

This isn’t perfect, it does create a two tier society, but what’s the alternative?

This seems a measured reply.
Wrt "high risk individuals who don't want to be shielded", this should just not be a factor in future strategy. By now, everybody knows the risks. Stopping the world to stop stupid people harming themselves doesn't seem right to me.
On the other hand, there may be at risk individuals who are unable to be shielded because of their circumstances. Some policy (using empty hotels rooms, increasing efforts to support them in shopping support etc) should be put in place to allow the not at risk to get on with their lives.

 

[SocketRocket]

A real concern I have about lifting restrictions too early and by that I mean before infection rates stay at a very low level; is the possibility of creating a new spike in numbers of infections. This increase could become a norm so we have the spectre of living with this virus at a moderate to high level for a long period.

This type of society would be a very divided one indeed where people due to their age, their misfortune of inheriting, catching/developing conditions that make them at a high risk of death if they get the virus; having to live a life tied to their homes for what could be an unspecified timescale so the rest of society can return to something near the previous norm. This may well be a consideration for protecting the economy but at what cost to a large section of our society.

There are some current unknown factors that could affect the outcome, a good vaccine that can keep infection low and recovery high, maybe this virus will run its course and like others of recent years then fade into insignificance, who knows as it's a new virus.

I think we need to hold our nerve at the moment and even tighten restrictions if necessary while hoping a vaccine can be produced fairly quickly. If not then we probably will start a gradual phased lifting of restrictions but can you imagine the hopelessness this will create with those that are required to live out their lives pent up at home, where ever that may be.

 

[User20205]

A real concern I have about lifting restrictions too early and by that I mean before infection rates stay at a very low level; is the possibility of creating a new spike in numbers of infections. This increase could become a norm so we have the spectre of living with this virus at a moderate to high level for a long period.

This type of society would be a very divided one indeed where people due to their age, their misfortune of inheriting, catching/developing conditions that make them at a high risk of death if they get the virus; having to live a life tied to their homes for what could be an unspecified timescale so the rest of society can return to something near the previous norm. This may well be a consideration for protecting the economy but at what cost to a large section of our society.

There are some current unknown factors that could affect the outcome, a good vaccine that can keep infection low and recovery high, maybe this virus will run its course and like others of recent years then fade into insignificance, who knows as it's a new virus.

I think we need to hold our nerve at the moment and even tighten restrictions if necessary while hoping a vaccine can be produced fairly quickly. If not then we probably will start a gradual phased lifting of restrictions but can you imagine the hopelessness this will create with those that are required to live out their lives pent up at home, where ever that may be.

So just to clarify, you would advocate an extension & tightening of any lockdown for all? This would be until an effective vaccine is developed?
It’s a noble idea, but based on any vaccine timetable that I’ve seen probably unrealistic.
It not fair that some maybe asked to isolate for longer than others, but the virus isn’t ‘fair’. I fully accept your point regards some being required to live at home whilst the rest of the world returns to some normalcy. I fully accept that this will impact on the quality of their lives, but......
Statistically, the virus doesn’t affect all equally. economically, what you suggest isn’t sustainable IMO, from an education viewpoint, can we keep kids out of school for the long term? What impact is the lockdown having on their mental health?
Because the virus affects different sections of society differently (according to the statistics) the only workable approach is a differing one for those different sections. The net result for those in extended lockdown is the same.
Infection & unfortunately some hospitalisation seems inevitable, all we can do is impact on the rate of infection & subsequent hospitalisation.

I would look to lift the lockdown, in a phased, controlled manner as soon as May 11th, if the stats support this. I’d ramp up antibody testing & focus on efforts to produce an effective vaccine.

In writing all of the above, I’m also fully accepting of the fact, that my attitude to the virus & the danger it poses to my immediate family will differ from some, but individual circumstance will colour our view on this

 

[SocketRocket]

So just to clarify, you would advocate an extension & tightening of any lockdown for all? This would be until an effective vaccine is developed?
It’s a noble idea, but based on any vaccine timetable that I’ve seen probably unrealistic.
It not fair that some maybe asked to isolate for longer than others, but the virus isn’t ‘fair’. I fully accept your point regards some being required to live at home whilst the rest of the world returns to some normalcy. I fully accept that this will impact on the quality of their lives, but......
Statistically, the virus doesn’t affect all equally. economically, what you suggest isn’t sustainable IMO, from an education viewpoint, can we keep kids out of school for the long term? What impact is the lockdown having on their mental health?
Because the virus affects different sections of society differently (according to the statistics) the only workable approach is a differing one for those different sections. The net result for those in extended lockdown is the same.
Infection & unfortunately some hospitalisation seems inevitable, all we can do is impact on the rate of infection & subsequent hospitalisation.

I would look to lift the lockdown, in a phased, controlled manner as soon as May 11th, if the stats support this. I’d ramp up antibody testing & focus on efforts to produce an effective vaccine.

In writing all of the above, I’m also fully accepting of the fact, that my attitude to the virus & the danger it poses to my immediate family will differ from some, but individual circumstance will colour our view on this

I think you need to read my last paragraph again, especially the part that says "If not then we probably will start a gradual phased lifting of restrictions but can you imagine the hopelessness this will create with those that are required to live out their lives pent up at home, where ever that may be."

I tried to suggest that we need to keep the restrictions at the moment as lifting them early would probably be a disaster.