Do you support another two week lockdown?

Do you support another two week lockdown?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 46.7%
  • No

    Votes: 40 53.3%

  • Total voters
    75
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

Using the 7 day rolling average, 3,000 patients admitted to hospital on 1 April, it took until the end of the month to get that number down to 1,500.

Roughly speaking the virus doubles every week, but it takes approximately 4 weeks to halve, a 2 week lockdown might reduce the case numbers by about a third, but it would take maybe 4 or 5 days to get back to where we were before the lockdown.

Thus were we to go into lockdown at midnight tonight, and come out on Wednesday 28th, we'd likely be back to current case numbers by Monday 2nd November.

All of which ignores the costs and disruption involved to all and the pointlessness of imposing restrictions on areas that have very low prevalence of the virus to start with.

TLDR version: very expensive, totally ineffective and only being touted for political reasons.
 
The picture is very variable across the country. Here in Lincolnshire the level of infection is low and the hospital admissions even lower. Being very rural in nature has helped us, but compared to when I visited the Fylde a few weeks ago, we appeared to be much more disciplined in following the guidelines than those on the Fylde. The same is the case in many other parts of the country. So is a national lockdown justified? Also, I am also not aware of any other country that has applied a second national lockdown - all appear to be doing local lockdowns or a targeted approch like the UK.
Of course, if there is another national lockdown I will follow it, but at the moment it does not look justified. I do suspect that if they closedown the whole country again it will end up being for more than two weeks.
 
Of course, if there is another national lockdown I will follow it, but at the moment it does not look justified. I do suspect that if they closedown the whole country again it will end up being for more than two weeks.

This is a good point, it's a lot harder to leave lockdown than it is to go into it, odds are that this circuit breaker could end up being extended and extended again, especially if compliance is much worse than first time around.
 
The two week lockdown is the scientific advice; it’s not being advanced for political reasons despite what Lost Seasider claims.

That said, that was the advice on 21 September, so two weeks would presumably not be long enough now given the rate of infection.

If there is a lockdown then any business forced to close should be properly compensated.
 
This is a good point, it's a lot harder to leave lockdown than it is to go into it, odds are that this circuit breaker could end up being extended and extended again, especially if compliance is much worse than first time around.
Yes. Especially as the scientific advice was given on 21 September and the rate of infection is much higher now.
 
The two week lockdown is the scientific advice; it’s not being advanced for political reasons despite what Lost Seasider claims.

This is the advice: https://assets.publishing.service.g...768_Fifty-eighth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf

Note the key words "should be considered", not "should be implemented".

This is what Prof Hunter thinks of the idea: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...aker-national-lockdown-wont-have-much-impact/

A two-week 'circuit breaker' ......... probably wouldn't have "much impact" on the overall trajectory of the virus, a leading professor has warned.

Thus it's entirely appropriate for the government to consider it then decide it's not a good idea.

The labour leaders call for the imposition of lockdown is of course entirely politically motivated and is designed to create a win/win for himself and no-one else.
 
This is the advice: https://assets.publishing.service.g...768_Fifty-eighth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf

Note the key words "should be considered", not "should be implemented".

This is what Prof Hunter thinks of the idea: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...aker-national-lockdown-wont-have-much-impact/

A two-week 'circuit breaker' ......... probably wouldn't have "much impact" on the overall trajectory of the virus, a leading professor has warned.

Thus it's entirely appropriate for the government to consider it then decide it's not a good idea.

The labour leaders call for the imposition of lockdown is of course entirely politically motivated and is designed to create a win/win for himself and no-one else.
Thanks for that. Now read paragraph 6 of the minutes.

“The more rapidly interventions are put in place, the more stringent they are....the greater the reduction in Covid related deaths (high confidence)”.

That’s pretty clear advice that Starmer is now saying should be followed. That’s not politics - except in the sense of the Leader of the Opposition doing his job, in the interests of the country.
 
That’s pretty clear advice that Starmer is now saying should be followed. That’s not politics - except in the sense of the Leader of the Opposition doing his job, in the interests of the country.

Again no, he's cherry picking one particular option and pushing it for purely political reasons.

And to repeat my earlier posts, a circuit breaker would do very little to actually slow down the virus and would achieve this at very great cost.
 
Again no, he's cherry picking one particular option and pushing it for purely political reasons.

And to repeat my earlier posts, a circuit breaker would do very little to actually slow down the virus and would achieve this at very great cost.
I agree a two week circuit breaker probably wouldn’t now be terribly effective. But that’s because it should have been implemented shortly after the meeting on 21 September. As per the scientific advice.

And I don’t really get why you have a problem with the Leader of the Opposition doing his job. Other than the obvious fact you don’t like what he’s saying of course.
 
I agree a two week circuit breaker probably wouldn’t now be terribly effective. But that’s because it should have been implemented shortly after the meeting on 21 September. As per the scientific advice.

Can we see your evidence that it would've been more effective in September?
 
Ergo it would be less effective.




Apparently it is.
Well if commensense doesn’t work for you why not refer to the sage minutes you posted as evidence? Specifically para 2.

“The shortlist of NPIs that should be considered for IMMEDIATE (my emphasis) introduction includes a) a circuit breaker (short period of lockdown) to return incidence to low levels”.

Immediate. As in 21 September or within a day or so. When the R Number was lower.
 
Well if commensense doesn’t work for you why not refer to the sage minutes you posted as evidence? Specifically para 2.

“The shortlist of NPIs that should be considered for IMMEDIATE (my emphasis) introduction includes a) a circuit breaker (short period of lockdown) to return incidence to low levels”.

Immediate. As in 21 September or within a day or so. When the R Number was lower.

Common sense? You understand that the R rate is not driven by the actual number of cases in the community don't you?

Common sense is that a circuit breaker is more effective when the R rate is high than when it is low, because more new cases happen when R is high than when it is low.

And again the key word is considered, and lockdown was one of 5 measures.

You are basically re-writing the SAGE minutes to suit your own agenda now.
 
Common sense? You understand that the R rate is not driven by the actual number of cases in the community don't you?

Common sense is that a circuit breaker is more effective when the R rate is high than when it is low, because more new cases happen when R is high than when it is low.

And again the key word is considered, and lockdown was one of 5 measures.

You are basically re-writing the SAGE minutes to suit your own agenda now.
What you chaffing about?

On 21 September one of the recommendations was for the IMMEDIATE introduction of a circuit breaker. It’s now 14th October and we still don’t have a circuit breaker.

I think it’s pretty clear who is rewriting the minutes to suit their own agenda.

Just admit it. You’re fed up of the lockdown. You want the virus to go away. You want to get back to normal ASAP. And, based on not very much evidence at all but against the advice of government experts, you think the best way to do that is let the pandemic rip whilst in some vague and unspecific way “protecting the elderly and vulnerable”.

And when that proves to be a disaster what do we say? “Whoops - that was a bit of a cock up. Sorreeee 😐
 
What you chaffing about?

On 21 September one of the recommendations was for the IMMEDIATE introduction of a circuit breaker. It’s now 14th October and we still don’t have a circuit breaker.

It wasn't a recommendation, it was a matter for consideration, and quite rightly the government decided to not implement it at the time.


Just admit it. You’re fed up of the lockdown. You want the virus to go away. You want to get back to normal ASAP. And, based on not very much evidence at all but against the advice of government experts, you think the best way to do that is let the pandemic rip whilst in some vague and unspecific way “protecting the elderly and vulnerable”.

Just admit it, you want to lock the country down totally for the next six months and damn the cost.
 
The two week lockdown is the scientific advice; it’s not being advanced for political reasons despite what Lost Seasider claims.

That said, that was the advice on 21 September, so two weeks would presumably not be long enough now given the rate of infection.

If there is a lockdown then any business forced to close should be properly compensated.
What if the businesses you talk about don’t have the collateral to pay members of staff for sitting in the house ? The government will pay for a portion but employers will need to pay the rest. Rishi may have a magic money tree but lots of businesses don’t.
 
What if the businesses you talk about don’t have the collateral to pay members of staff for sitting in the house ? The government will pay for a portion but employers will need to pay the rest. Rishi may have a magic money tree but lots of businesses don’t.
Very good point and I’m certainly not underplaying the devastating effect on businesses and the economy. That said under the furlough scheme lots of employees only received the 80% and the employer didn’t top up the balance.
 
I voted no for similar reasons to Pete, there are many areas where it is still low and controlled, and we want to help all you lot survive 😄

However, the problem with doing it by area is the problem Wales and ourselves are facing. Welsh residents, essential travel only, English tourists can do what they like travelling into Wales. Up here, central belt of Scotland, advise local travel only, but can still go on holiday, so they have all (OK, exaggerated) come up here, we are having our busiest week ever. Wonder what our R rate will be next week.

So, for me, local lock downs, but enforced restrictions on movement to make it work, or we will all be shutdown.
 
I voted "Yes", but I can see the arguments on both sides.

My feeling is that at the moment what we have is clearly not working, and the lack of clarity is giving people who don't want to be socially responsible a fig leaf to hide behind. So from a public health perspective, a lockdown makes some sense. Economically, I'm much less sure. And to be honest, if I was 35 and working in the "wrong" sector of the economy, I daresay I would feel very differently.
 
I voted "Yes", but I can see the arguments on both sides.

My feeling is that at the moment what we have is clearly not working, and the lack of clarity is giving people who don't want to be socially responsible a fig leaf to hide behind. So from a public health perspective, a lockdown makes some sense. Economically, I'm much less sure. And to be honest, if I was 35 and working in the "wrong" sector of the economy, I daresay I would feel very differently.
That’s pretty much where I am, save that I don’t think 2 weeks would be long enough now, bearing in mind how long the first lockdown lasted. Bit like the 10pm curfew I’m worried it’ll have little impact on the public health crisis but major damage to the economy.

But I’m also a long ways from being persuaded by the “let rip” brigade either.
 
But I’m also a long ways from being persuaded by the “let rip” brigade either.

These are my workings, I'd be happy to see yours.

Age
Mean age
Remaining life expectancy
Population
Base infection rate
Lockdown effect
Lockdown infection rate
Patients
Mortality rate
Deaths
Life years lost
Value per life year
Life value lost
20–24​
25​
55​
4,297,000​
80.00%​
0.00%​
80.00%​
3,440,000​
0.01%​
344​
18,920​
£60,000​
£1,135,200,000​
25–29​
25​
55​
4,307,000​
79.00%​
0.00%​
79.00%​
3,400,000​
0.01%​
340​
18,700​
£60,000​
£1,122,000,000​
30–34​
35​
45​
4,126,000​
78.00%​
0.00%​
78.00%​
3,220,000​
0.03%​
966​
43,470​
£60,000​
£2,608,200,000​
35–39​
35​
45​
4,194,000​
77.00%​
0.00%​
77.00%​
3,230,000​
0.03%​
969​
43,605​
£60,000​
£2,616,300,000​
40–44​
45​
35​
4,626,000​
76.00%​
0.00%​
76.00%​
3,520,000​
0.07%​
2,464​
86,240​
£60,000​
£5,174,400,000​
45–49​
45​
35​
4,643,000​
75.00%​
0.00%​
75.00%​
3,480,000​
0.07%​
2,436​
85,260​
£60,000​
£5,115,600,000​
50–54​
55​
25​
4,095,000​
74.00%​
90.00%​
7.40%​
300,000​
0.30%​
900​
22,500​
£60,000​
£1,350,000,000​
55–59​
55​
25​
3,614,000​
73.00%​
90.00%​
7.30%​
260,000​
0.30%​
780​
19,500​
£60,000​
£1,170,000,000​
60–64​
65​
15​
3,807,000​
72.00%​
90.00%​
7.20%​
270,000​
1.00%​
2,700​
40,500​
£60,000​
£2,430,000,000​
65–69​
65​
15​
3,017,000​
71.00%​
90.00%​
7.10%​
210,000​
1.00%​
2,100​
31,500​
£60,000​
£1,890,000,000​
70–74​
75​
5​
2,463,000​
70.00%​
90.00%​
7.00%​
170,000​
3.40%​
5,780​
28,900​
£60,000​
£1,734,000,000​
75–79​
75​
5​
2,006,000​
69.00%​
90.00%​
6.90%​
140,000​
3.40%​
4,760​
23,800​
£60,000​
£1,428,000,000​
45,195,000​
21,640,000​
24,539
£27,773,700,000​
47.88%​
Assumptions and variables
Value of one life year​
£60,000​
Starting rate of infection​
80.00%​
Age-infection decline rate​
1.00%​
Lockdown age​
50​
Lockdown effect​
90.00%​
 
These are my workings, I'd be happy to see yours.

Age
Mean age
Remaining life expectancy
Population
Base infection rate
Lockdown effect
Lockdown infection rate
Patients
Mortality rate
Deaths
Life years lost
Value per life year
Life value lost
20–24​
25​
55​
4,297,000​
80.00%​
0.00%​
80.00%​
3,440,000​
0.01%​
344​
18,920​
£60,000​
£1,135,200,000​
25–29​
25​
55​
4,307,000​
79.00%​
0.00%​
79.00%​
3,400,000​
0.01%​
340​
18,700​
£60,000​
£1,122,000,000​
30–34​
35​
45​
4,126,000​
78.00%​
0.00%​
78.00%​
3,220,000​
0.03%​
966​
43,470​
£60,000​
£2,608,200,000​
35–39​
35​
45​
4,194,000​
77.00%​
0.00%​
77.00%​
3,230,000​
0.03%​
969​
43,605​
£60,000​
£2,616,300,000​
40–44​
45​
35​
4,626,000​
76.00%​
0.00%​
76.00%​
3,520,000​
0.07%​
2,464​
86,240​
£60,000​
£5,174,400,000​
45–49​
45​
35​
4,643,000​
75.00%​
0.00%​
75.00%​
3,480,000​
0.07%​
2,436​
85,260​
£60,000​
£5,115,600,000​
50–54​
55​
25​
4,095,000​
74.00%​
90.00%​
7.40%​
300,000​
0.30%​
900​
22,500​
£60,000​
£1,350,000,000​
55–59​
55​
25​
3,614,000​
73.00%​
90.00%​
7.30%​
260,000​
0.30%​
780​
19,500​
£60,000​
£1,170,000,000​
60–64​
65​
15​
3,807,000​
72.00%​
90.00%​
7.20%​
270,000​
1.00%​
2,700​
40,500​
£60,000​
£2,430,000,000​
65–69​
65​
15​
3,017,000​
71.00%​
90.00%​
7.10%​
210,000​
1.00%​
2,100​
31,500​
£60,000​
£1,890,000,000​
70–74​
75​
5​
2,463,000​
70.00%​
90.00%​
7.00%​
170,000​
3.40%​
5,780​
28,900​
£60,000​
£1,734,000,000​
75–79​
75​
5​
2,006,000​
69.00%​
90.00%​
6.90%​
140,000​
3.40%​
4,760​
23,800​
£60,000​
£1,428,000,000​
45,195,000​
21,640,000​
24,539
£27,773,700,000​
47.88%​
Assumptions and variables
Value of one life year​
£60,000​
Starting rate of infection​
80.00%​
Age-infection decline rate​
1.00%​
Lockdown age​
50​
Lockdown effect​
90.00%​
 
These are my workings, I'd be happy to see yours.

Age
Mean age
Remaining life expectancy
Population
Base infection rate
Lockdown effect
Lockdown infection rate
Patients
Mortality rate
Deaths
Life years lost
Value per life year
Life value lost
20–24​
25​
55​
4,297,000​
80.00%​
0.00%​
80.00%​
3,440,000​
0.01%​
344​
18,920​
£60,000​
£1,135,200,000​
25–29​
25​
55​
4,307,000​
79.00%​
0.00%​
79.00%​
3,400,000​
0.01%​
340​
18,700​
£60,000​
£1,122,000,000​
30–34​
35​
45​
4,126,000​
78.00%​
0.00%​
78.00%​
3,220,000​
0.03%​
966​
43,470​
£60,000​
£2,608,200,000​
35–39​
35​
45​
4,194,000​
77.00%​
0.00%​
77.00%​
3,230,000​
0.03%​
969​
43,605​
£60,000​
£2,616,300,000​
40–44​
45​
35​
4,626,000​
76.00%​
0.00%​
76.00%​
3,520,000​
0.07%​
2,464​
86,240​
£60,000​
£5,174,400,000​
45–49​
45​
35​
4,643,000​
75.00%​
0.00%​
75.00%​
3,480,000​
0.07%​
2,436​
85,260​
£60,000​
£5,115,600,000​
50–54​
55​
25​
4,095,000​
74.00%​
90.00%​
7.40%​
300,000​
0.30%​
900​
22,500​
£60,000​
£1,350,000,000​
55–59​
55​
25​
3,614,000​
73.00%​
90.00%​
7.30%​
260,000​
0.30%​
780​
19,500​
£60,000​
£1,170,000,000​
60–64​
65​
15​
3,807,000​
72.00%​
90.00%​
7.20%​
270,000​
1.00%​
2,700​
40,500​
£60,000​
£2,430,000,000​
65–69​
65​
15​
3,017,000​
71.00%​
90.00%​
7.10%​
210,000​
1.00%​
2,100​
31,500​
£60,000​
£1,890,000,000​
70–74​
75​
5​
2,463,000​
70.00%​
90.00%​
7.00%​
170,000​
3.40%​
5,780​
28,900​
£60,000​
£1,734,000,000​
75–79​
75​
5​
2,006,000​
69.00%​
90.00%​
6.90%​
140,000​
3.40%​
4,760​
23,800​
£60,000​
£1,428,000,000​
45,195,000​
21,640,000​
24,539
£27,773,700,000​
47.88%​
Assumptions and variables
Value of one life year​
£60,000​
Starting rate of infection​
80.00%​
Age-infection decline rate​
1.00%​
Lockdown age​
50​
Lockdown effect​
90.00%​
Sorry but you’re going to have to send links to the underlying data/stats as well as evidence of your assumptions.
 
I love scientists according to them to could reduce deaths by between 3000 and 107,000. So it's not an exact science then?
Spot on. It's quackery and too many people continue to cling to their every word. Still, I get to laugh at "follow the science" goons who have forgotten the Nazi party had scientists.
I particularly liked this one from the SAGE minutes:
"Overall, the evidence base on which to judge the effectiveness and harms associated with different interventions is weak and so there is considerable uncertainty around the estimates presented here".
 
Anyway, Nichola has just said 94 Scottish cases this week alone have been to Blackpool, so can you please just keep it to yourselves. Poor Scots not social distancing but it's Blackpool's fault.

And she's worried that the central belt is off to The Armfield Club this weekend to watch the Old Firm game
 
Sorry but you’re going to have to send links to the underlying data/stats as well as evidence of your assumptions.

Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure
Mortality rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
Value of 1 year's life (page 9): https://iea.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-and-the-economic-value-of-human-life/

The infection rates are I think reasonable guesses but feel free to play around with them, I've made some simplifying assumptions about life expectancy and excluded anyone over the age of 80; likewise there's no quality of life adjustment which would work in the other direction, again if you want to expand or improve on my model feel free to do so.

It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion, and it's far better sourced than anything I've seen from the circuit breaker camp.
 
Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure
Mortality rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
Value of 1 year's life (page 9): https://iea.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-and-the-economic-value-of-human-life/

The infection rates are I think reasonable guesses but feel free to play around with them, I've made some simplifying assumptions about life expectancy and excluded anyone over the age of 80; likewise there's no quality of life adjustment which would work in the other direction, again if you want to expand or improve on my model feel free to do so.

It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion, and it's far better sourced than anything I've seen from the circuit breaker camp.
Ok. I’ll review and get back to you

(As if; but don’t tell him. Bless 😂)
 
Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure
Mortality rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
Value of 1 year's life (page 9): https://iea.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-and-the-economic-value-of-human-life/

The infection rates are I think reasonable guesses but feel free to play around with them, I've made some simplifying assumptions about life expectancy and excluded anyone over the age of 80; likewise there's no quality of life adjustment which would work in the other direction, again if you want to expand or improve on my model feel free to do so.

It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion, and it's far better sourced than anything I've seen from the circuit breaker camp.

You may want to wait until this is put into the public domain;


Anyway, the thing about all models though is that they make a lot of simplifying assumptions that don't reflect the real world. In the case of COViD we don't really know enough about transmission, long term effects and how immunity is acquired and how long it lasts for to make any of the models very realistic. That is why the scientists give themselves so much leeway on the effects of certain interventions (like in the report above).

As for what we should do, I am not sure and I am glad that I am not making the decisions. What I can say is that we need decisive and clear leadership and that has not been forthcoming in this crisis. The current approach looks like an attempt to please everyone and ends up with the worst results - a high death rate and a severely damaged economy and no clear strategy being communicated. If I was in government my priority would be to protect our Health Service by whatever means is necessary. If we get into a situation where people are being turned away from overwhelmed hospitals then I dread to think of the consequences. This situation could turn very nasty very easily.
 
You may want to wait until this is put into the public domain;

I am not an expert but I've created a model and the end results look plausible; this is what a circuit breaker looks like:

1602683600778.png

Red line is no lockdown, blue line is lockdown today, yellow is the optimum lockdown.

Lockdown today delays peak by 2 weeks and reduces total infection by about 500,000 (28,500,000).

Optimum lockdown terminates the peak at the point where about 40% of the population has been exposed (and is presumed to be immune), this means that there is sufficient herd immunity in the population that R cannot recover above 1, the optimum lockdown time would be the start of December and would reduce total infections to 22,000,000, reducing cases by 6,500,000.

That report from the BBC is likely highly misleading, it talks about "end of the year", however if you look at my model the peak is expected to be about the end of the year, so pushing the peak back by two weeks will of course reduce cases this year and achieve little of note at the same time. It also leads me to believe that my model is broadly correct.
 
No point in a lockdown if test, trace, isolate isn't used effectively in the post lockdown period. That's why it's 'out of control' again. Political failure, N, S and W of the border.
 
I am not an expert but I've created a model and the end results look plausible; this is what a circuit breaker looks like:

View attachment 3189

Red line is no lockdown, blue line is lockdown today, yellow is the optimum lockdown.

Lockdown today delays peak by 2 weeks and reduces total infection by about 500,000 (28,500,000).

Optimum lockdown terminates the peak at the point where about 40% of the population has been exposed (and is presumed to be immune), this means that there is sufficient herd immunity in the population that R cannot recover above 1, the optimum lockdown time would be the start of December and would reduce total infections to 22,000,000, reducing cases by 6,500,000.

That report from the BBC is likely highly misleading, it talks about "end of the year", however if you look at my model the peak is expected to be about the end of the year, so pushing the peak back by two weeks will of course reduce cases this year and achieve little of note at the same time. It also leads me to believe that my model is broadly correct.
What does ‘optimum lockdown’ mean?
 
What does ‘optimum lockdown’ mean?

Optimium timing, about the first 2 weeks of December.

It's the point when about 40% of the population have the virus, which with a simple bit of probability theory is the point where Re should become naturally less than one, so if you lockdown at that point you reduce R to about 0.4, which reduces case numbers by a factor of four in two weeks and because Re is less than one it cannot then stage a comeback and peters out at least until next winter.

On the down side, it is about 3.5 million cases a week, but that's where you are with a October lockdown anyway.
 
Last edited:
Optimium timing, about the first 2 weeks of December.

It's the point when about 40% of the population have the virus, which with a simple bit of probability theory is the point where Re should become naturally less than one, so if you lockdown at that point you reduce R to about 0.4, which reduces case numbers by a factor of four in two weeks and because Re is less than one it cannot then stage a comeback and peters out at least until next winter.

On the down side, it is about 3.5 million cases a week, but that's where you are with a October lockdown anyway.
If we have anything like 3.5 million cases a week then we will have major problems which could lead to alsorts of things including civil unrest.
Our NHS would not be able to cope with anything like those numbers of patients, even if the conversion rate from Covid + to hospital inpatient is lower than previously.
We do need a vaccine urgently - if there is a realistic prospect of a vaccine being available soon (i.e. January) then perhaps another full lockdown is the right approach.
 
I’m not convinced that 3.5M cases per week is realistic. With basic measures, I’d say the virus will be self-limiting at a level below that.
 
If we have anything like 3.5 million cases a week then we will have major problems which could lead to alsorts of things including civil unrest.
Our NHS would not be able to cope with anything like those numbers of patients, even if the conversion rate from Covid + to hospital inpatient is lower than previously.
We do need a vaccine urgently - if there is a realistic prospect of a vaccine being available soon (i.e. January) then perhaps another full lockdown is the right approach.

We get those numbers if we have a circuit breaker now or not, in fact what it does show is that if we're going to go down the circuit breaker route we should save it until we really need it, not use it as a political stunt because we must do something.

Does anyone have any idea what the NHS could cope with in terms of covid patient numbers? We're at about 5,000 today, I think there's about 12,000 spaces in the Nightingale's not yet being used, could we cope with 20,000 patients? How about more?
 
Back
Top