These are the options

Based on the information currently available.

1 - Do nothing at all - 80%+ of the UK population contract the virus and half a million die.The vast majority of healthy individuals have mild symptoms. Others will be compromised and may have lingering health problems. The epidemic is all but done by August. An immunity is built up in the population so the epidemic will never return.

Half a million die every year in the UK. This doesn't mean we'll have a million deaths this year, as the virus preys predominantly on many of those who would have formed part of that half million had there been no outbreak. However, it will also take many who would not have died this year and the number of deaths will increase significantly.

The NHS (and other services) will be overwhelmed in the next 5 months and thousands who may have been saved had the service been running at its optimum may die.

There will be many very angry people who have lost loved ones who blame the government's response.

The disruption to wider society and the economy is minimised.

2 - Mitigation (attempt to slow the spread of the virus) - 40% of the UK population contract the virus and quarter of a million die. In the first year. Over the next couple of years 80%+ of the UK population contract the virus and half a million die.The vast majority of healthy individuals have mild symptoms. Others will be compromised and may have lingering health problems.

The NHS (and other services) will be overwhelmed for a prolonged period and thousands who may have been saved had the service been running at its optimum will die.

There will be many very angry people who have lost loved ones, or lost their job, or lost their business and lost their home who blame the government's response.

The disruption to wider society and the economy is increased significantly.

3 - Suppression (try to stop the spread of the virus) - If we're as successful as China then 5-10% of the population contract the virus and 30 to 60 thousand people die. In the first wave. This leaves 90-95% of the population still susceptible to infection. There is no exit strategy. As soon as lock-down is lifted the epidemic will return and either suppression begins again or option 1 or 2 are followed. Either way 80%+ of the UK population contract the virus and half a million die.The vast majority of healthy individuals have mild symptoms. Others will be compromised and may have lingering health problems.

The NHS (and other services) will be overwhelmed when each wave hits. There are only 5000 ICU beds in the UK. You can treat more people if you draw out the epidemic, slow it down, but never enough to meet requirements. The longer it continues the more people with other major conditions who would usually occupy these beds will die because they cannot be treated. The numbers saved from corona virus will be barely significant on the overall death toll.

There will be many very angry people who have lost loved ones, or lost their job, or lost their business and lost their home who blame the government's response.

The disruption to wider society and the economy will be catastrophic

4 - Long term suppression until a vaccine can be developed, manufactured and administered - currently estimated at 18 months, but as yet it doesn't exist. Unknown territory. Even if we do this well the initial wave cannot be avoided. After that... The breakdown of society and the economy will be total. No one has any idea how successful we'll be at suppression. We are not China and we do not have a long history of doing what we're told by the government.


I will follow government advice but if I had a vote I'd vote for option 1. I have an auto-immune disease triggered by viral infection which means if I contract the virus and only suffer the very mildest of symptoms I may still be left entirely incapacitated by my post viral condition.

 

I genuinely don't know what the right answer is.

I am extremely uneasy about option 1 - just allowing people to die and not even trying to do something about it doesn't sit right with me at all, but I accept that I could be wrong and it could indeed be the lesser of many evils.

The only thing that could work for the population as a whole is suppression that people actually adhere to (am I really asking too much there?) and Universal Basic Income to all, while a vaccine is developed.

I'm not saying that this is feasible, I know it's not without cataclysmic changes to the taxation system in the UK, ones that would be untried, untested and unlikely to go down without a hitch.

 

Can someone lend me the service revolver? I'll try not to make too much of a mess blowing my own brains out,

 

Governments across the world are all in a Quandry ,trying to do the right thing until a vaccine can be found which the USA and UK are not far away.
The ones making the decions are stuck between a rock and a hard stone.
This is not saying Boris I right or wrong.
I'm SURE Corbyn would have the same dilemma.
They will all follow advice from their experts.

 

A mass manufactured vaccine is still at least year away at an optimistic estimate

 

This has been my general train of thought, and I'd also be leaning towards number 1. Except for the fact that going with that option will mean that a large number of health care staff and other people who keep society running will get ill at the same time, so the economic fallout could be just as severe. I really don't know what the least bad option is.

 

Mental isn’t it

I can’t understand why a lot of ppl are being so blasé about it, still!

I thought that surely isolating the over 70s and people with ULH conditions from a few weeks back would have been a better idea and let the rest of us get it. The government has known about it coming for a little while and certainly about the severity

 

This seems like the best idea I have seen. Still not wonderful but the least damaging.

 

I think people need to stop thinking this is killing just old people and ones with underlying health issues.

It fcukking isn’t. It’s killing healthy people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

You only have to read some posts on here to understand how naive people are to what is happening around the world.

 

Even if we went with option 1 we would presumably have to keep the borders closed and if we did let anyone in quarantine them for at least 14 days.
All the options are terrible, and I'm not sure anyone should be making the decision on how many should die. But like in wartime it is a decision that's going to have to be made.

 

Option 5.
Isolate all the vulnerable. 80% of the healthy will get the virus and become immune. A small number of people will die. It will all be but done by August at which time the vulnerable will be able to reintegrate knowing that there are almost no contagious people around able to give them the virus.

Option 6. Isolate all the vulnerable and encourage the contagious to deliberately spread the virus to as many others as possible attempting to speed up the spread throughout the healthy members of the public. Could the 80% figure be reached in a matter of weeks?

 

A small number won't die in that scenario, according to all predictions. The sheer amount of cases would overwhelm the healthcare system and thousands would die due to being unable to get the care they require.

 

The thing is ST i haven't read anything where they've definitively said you can't catch it twice. There's lots of probablys and hopefullys but no 100 percent guarantee.

 

Many vulnerable people require care. How do you propose we do that if they're isolated and the rest of the population have the virus. It's option 1.

 

There isn't a 100% guarantee with anything though really but hasn't it on how the human body works and how it always works against viruses it builds up antibodies which in healthy people causes immunity. While it's possible that this could be different there's nothing to suggest it is

 

It sounds good but I'm not sure its that's simple. Certainty the idea of speeding it up. We were told this would be the next step, so let's see. It would certainly be better than a total lock down as the more people we can allow to continue to work the better.

 

Option 1 would get this over quickly but it would totally cripple the NHS. Unless you are literally saying we do not touch anyone with serious respiratory problems, in that case it would be extremely unethical and I couldnt support it.

 

Wouldn't you then add the care and NHS staff into the list of vulnerable people and isolate them?

I saw one model which suggested you have three groups of people

1. Vulnerable.
2. Those who are needed to care for and treat the vulnerable
3. General population

The theory is that you seperate group one and 50% of group two !(2a) from the other 50% of group two (2b) and group 3. As members of 2B catch and recover from the virus they switch places with members of 2A.

Its a logistical nightmare but in theory possible.

 

Even if the NHS had the capacity I'm not sure it would be ethical to take a course of action that leads to extra deaths.