• 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?

  • 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.

  • Thanks. My only thought to that is this was the plan from the off, right? Meaning we let spread occur when we could have been more aggressive. Wouldn't it have been less disruption to control going forward if we had jumped on it sooner? (While we wait for the vaccine).

About

Avatar for jellybaby @jellybaby started