-
do a more extreme version to stop spread fully
100% stay at home, close all the shops, turn off the national grid, stop caring for people in hospitals/care homes for about 3 weeks. Should stop the virus. Might be a little tricky for all but the most organised prepper.
If the plan is 60% of UK to get virus then it will surely take so long like this?
I think the plan is to keep rate of infection low enough to be manageable until there is a vaccine.
Which I think means restrictions of one sort or another for a couple of years.
-
It's because we're not in control of our own fate. If the virus is still spreading around the world then eliminating it here through more extreme social distancing means effectively closing our borders or quarantining everyone that arrives. It's just not feasible. The entire world is chain and it breaks at the weakest link.
They're banking on a vaccine or a robust form of herd immunity with very low reinfection rates.
-
the current UK long-term strategy
Current being the operative word.
You are reading a single comment by @Squaredisk and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
jellybaby
deleted
@Squaredisk
Still confused about the current UK long-term strategy. Vallance saying that we are aiming to get just under what the system can cope with then look at how we can lessen restrictions? So the idea is a type of 'hammer and dance'. Yet with more life lost than if we do a more extreme version to stop spread fully and then use contact trace etc. to snub out new cases until we can treat with vaccine. Why have a plan that would result in so many deaths and the chaos of full capacity? If the plan is 60% of UK to get virus then it will surely take so long like this?