Does the UK really think it's ready to exit lockdown?

And when they are unemployed, facing homelessness, struggling to feed themselves and their families. Then what?

 

So faR the money spent on lockdown and protecting jobs would fund the NHS for three years in its current funding structures.

 

Then they'd still be alive.

 

No. The main takeaway is that you knew it was Adele from a quick glance.

 

not for me.

 

I've just finished reading a terrible story of a 12 year old kid who had been struggling with lockdown who hung himself. 12 years old

 

You would hope so. Probably one of the most successful viruses is the common cold; victim gets a snotty nose.

 

How about the Express

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...utation-weaker-arizona-scientists-covid9-cure

Something with Covid is happening. Daily infections haven't changed since the peak of the virus and yet deaths are way lower and hospital admissions are down vastly. There has to be a reason for it. Social distancing is helping turn Covid in to more milder cases which is a very good thing.

When the old normality returns I suspect we will all get ill at some point with flu or sickness bug or something. Our immune systems will have got used to not having to fight off stuff as much from staying in so much and lack of contact with others.

 

There is a reason for it. We're doing miles more testing, 20 times as much as a month ago, hence number of cases reported staying the same despite the lockdown. Instances are falling in our population. If they'd remained the same then positive results would have gone up when we increased testing.

 

We are already in a lifted lockdown situation compared to Spain and Italy.

 

Not those with Cancers going undiagnosed. Or those who commit suicide.
It cant be save lives at all costs can it?
I don't think we should accept anyone been made homeless due to these measures. But they will be.
Should I have quit my job rather than continuing to work? Should everyone do that?

 

Yes presumably in early April the actual cases was a lot higher. The only real number you can try and work off is the number of deaths. As we expand testing milder cases will be confirmed. Just a month ago you only got tested if you were so ill it hospitalised you.

 

That's exactly what @havana red1 suggested. People should refuse their employment

 

I can't even begin to imagine the implications if large numbers did that. Fairly sure it would bankrupt the country, which I assume would cripple the NHS.
I do wonder if the stay at home message has been hammered so much that some people are just too scared now. For all the pictures we see of people having street parties and busy parks it is likely still a small minority.

 

Either the virus was never wide spread, we were reporting just about all the cases there were, it was just that it was much more serious than we feared and everyone who contracted it went to hospital. And as we've upped testing everyone who is infected is still going to hospital, all the positive tests are still just this group and the tests in the wider community are just about all coming back negative. There are fewer deaths as we've become better at treating it.

Or, and far more likely, it was widespread, the positive tests from those ending up in hospital were a fraction of the total. But the measures put in place have worked in slowing down the spread of the virus, there are fewer cases now, so an increase in testing has not seen an increase in positive test results.

We now need to keep on increasing the number of tests and employ tracking and tracing along with daily tests for health and care workers and proper ppe, to not just slow the infection rate like in the rest of the population but to stop it amongst vulnerable people.

 

No we did not.

The alleged 100k test (see second graph) happened on the 30th April. 3 weeks before that (9th April) the number of tests were a fraction over 10K (see first graph). So we went from 10k tests a day to 100k in 3 weeks. See both graphs below, which Ive had to use as they show different time scales. Also just as a note: some tests were performed multiple times on people, so although the number is unknown it's not 100k individual single tests.

 

So if the death rate is between 0.5% and 3% per 100 infected and say 30,000 have died, then between 1 and 6 million have been infected. Which is 1.5% to 10% of the population. Long way off herd immunity from those figures. And quite a disparity between confirmed infections, which is 215,000.

 

The point TM was making was that tests have increased significantly but positive tests have not. Your figures absolutely back that up, but you've spent the morning researching this cos he wasn't exact in his figures. OK. We'll tell you you've won if you like.

 

Exactly this. From further down France's page at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
"April 2: 2,116 new cases and 1,355 new deaths in France, including 884 fatalities in nursing homes that occurred over a period of several weeks and that were announced only today. NOTE: If and when the French government determines the correct distribution of these additional deaths over time, we will adjust historical data accordingly
"April 3: the French Government reported 17,827 additional cases and 532 additional deaths from nursing homes that had not been reported previously"
There were 820 EHPAD deaths reported out of the total of 1417 on April 7th. And so on.

 

Yes, but as reported many won’t realise they’ve had the virus as their symptoms would be similar to that of a cold. And therefore wouldn’t have been tested or worried?