COVID19 - your strategy?

movilogo

Which strategy you prefer (not for yourself but assuming you have the authority to decide UK's strategy on COVID19)
Your selection is private i.e. others cannot see your choice.

Thrugelmir

There's no simple solution. A complete lock down isn't possible. If people follow the advice given then the length of the pain will be shortened. The less contact the less transmission. 

Filo25

The bigger issue is what happens after the initial lockdown is over.
At this stage it seems unlikely we can fully eradicate the virus worldwide so it is possible some form of containment measures will be required until a vaccine is ready, assuming we are staying with the Suppression strategy outlined in the Imperial College report.

movilogo

How long one can carry CV in the body and can infect others? 
Is it forever? or after being infected one can infect other for a finite time only like 14 days?

worldtraveller

Filo25 said:

The bigger issue is what happens after the initial lockdown is over.
At this stage it seems unlikely we can fully eradicate the virus worldwide so it is possible some form of containment measures will be required until a vaccine is ready, assuming we are staying with the Suppression strategy outlined in the Imperial College report.

I tend to agree with you Filo25.

At this time my personal view (and let's be quite honest here, that can change daily, let alone weekly, or monthly!) is somewhere between President Trump's viewpoint and a TOTAL lockdown.

Over the past few days, I can't help but think, that a lot of people, that believe that we should have a TOTAL, 100% LOCKDOWN, don't quite appreciate exactly how that will affect the whole global financial system going forward. A lot of them, probably, have no comprehension, whatsoever, of how important global business is, in supporting their current lifestyle!

If, and I state, IF, this continues for many more months, as it well could, we could see a complete breakdown in financial markets. That would result in a significant number of people losing their jobs, and any income whatsoever, including their homes, you name it!

At what point is that complete financial breakdown, with possible bank runs, and the like, less preferable than a continued 100% total lockdown?

Frankly, I don't know, but it's something that we're all probably have to consider over the coming days/weeks/months!

Just saying! :-:smile:  

Herzlos

I'd go for a total but short lockdown - in theory if it only incubates for 14 days then you should only need to keep everyone isolated for 2-3 weeks. Everything that isn't vital closes (i.e. hospitals, emergency services), with a huge ramp up in couriers (with regular testing) to do as much of running about as possible. Shopping provided to the home where possible.

It sounds severe, but it worked for China and it's the only way to avoid a looping infection.

Most importantly is quick action - we'd be in a much better position if we'd started 2 weeks earlier when we knew it was coming.

ElephantBoy57

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-covid-19-uk-recession-worst-century-deutsche-bank-060032922.html

The 'experts' are saying we could suffer a reduction in GDP from 2% to 7%; a massive reduction in GDP anywhere near 7% will cost millions, that will make people poorer and some homeless, even cause more deaths.

I favour work carrying on whenever possible, but a lockdown in some areas and more testing. Germany is testing 100 times more than the UK.

It may be that our NHS is so poor that we cannot do more testing.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos said:

It sounds severe, but it worked for China and it's the only way to avoid a looping infection.

The recovery rate (%) in China is totally out of step with all the other published country figures. 

Thrugelmir

ElephantBoy57 said:

It may be that our NHS is so poor that we cannot do more testing.

You need lab facilities with the equipment that can undertake the tests. Germany has access to non Healthcare facilities. In the UK the work is being outsourced as well .