As a UK citizen I am honestly terrified by my governments response and actions. In years to come I fear it’s going to be the textbook example of exactly how not to manage these types of situations.
I thought that - but then I watched today's press conference with the chief scientific adviser and chief medical adviser. They made some very good cases for not locking stuff down just yet.
Primarily you need to consider the behaviour of people. This is going to go on for a while no matter what we do and if we lockdown people now, by the time we hit the peak they will be ready to give up and go outside again. We need to save the drastic measures for the peak in order to spread the damage out and make sure they are effective. I was previously critical of the government but honestly I think it makes a lot of sense.
We need to consider the effectiveness of measures. Banning all flights into the US from Europe may sound like a grand plan but in reality it's not going to make a big dent and the economic damage is going to be huge. But it sounds good and in the current climate where we're being led by panic that's the plan people will like.
>> The resulting economic impact therefore can’t be that big.
The impact on the spread of the virus can't be that big either. My point though is that big flashy moves like banning all flights appear to do very little compared to more mundane tactics. At least based on the info in the press conference I'm referring to the data doesn't support flight bans, banning large gatherings etc.
You shouldn't discount the psychological factor of these things. Today, 1 day after the big move by the US to ban flights from Europe, we're seeing a lot more movement from various governments and states in taking action against the virus' spread. So even though the action itself might not be that useful, it's big enough that it gets people attention and it seems to have moved people across governments into more action.
True but I'd still go back to the UK advice: the virus is going to spread (we aren't going to stop it) so we need to focus on spreading the peak out so we can deal with it. If we force people to make drastic changes too early (well before the peak) then when we actually need them to make those changes (just before the peak) they will be burnt out and won't do it nearly as effectively.
Until recently I would have said the same thing as you, but I'm increasingly convinced that the drastic changes (closing schools, social distancing etc) are exactly what we should be doing to spread the peak out.
The peak is coming either way. Continuing to allow people to mix with each other as normal will make it steeper and more intense.
> We need to save the drastic measures for the peak.
If you only act when you hit the peak, any measures will be moot. Countries need to act now to reduce that peak and flatten the curve.
But sure, why not letting thousands of Atletico supporters into Liverpool, while Madrid has 1k+ cases. Was it also a "drastic measure" to play a football match behind closed doors?
> "Our aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely," he said.
> "Also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission.”
They’re not acting only when the peak hits. They’re staging the response.
More serious measures come in as the number of transmission go up. And that’s all about managing the resources of the NHS over a long period of time.
Introduce lockdown now, sure, you delay the peak. But you don’t spread it out over a longer time period. People will stop caring and start ignoring advice.
I'd suggest watching the government press conference today where the chief science advisor + medical officer explain it. They explain exactly why you're wrong (and I'm more inclined to believe them after hearing them make the case).
