When should lockdown end?

[Doc Holliday]

agree with all you say, except the last sentence.

Explain?

[winkywanky]

I believe Dominic Cummings was advocating something along these lines.  I don't remember what the specific quote was that was attributed to him, but it was pretty callous. 

I do think weighing up the pressures of the economy and re-electability is more important to them than simply saving lives.  And right now, they are probably listening to a lot of different advice and opinions, and also looking at the global competition in terms of getting back to business...

I suspect this is one occasion when Mr. Cummings will have less influence than usual, with his brutally logical and off-the-wall thinking.

I suspect that even as we speak, he's locked up in the broom cupboard under the stairs at No.10 (but obviously fed and watered daily, and his litter tray changed).

You think prioritising the economy over acceptable levels of elderly deaths will more likely get them re-elected? I think you may have that very wrong. Everyone is watching, everyone has a mum and/or granny!

[hornyguylondon]

I believe Dominic Cummings was advocating something along these lines.  I don't remember what the specific quote was that was attributed to him, but it was pretty callous. 

I do think weighing up the pressures of the economy and re-electability is more important to them than simply saving lives.  And right now, they are probably listening to a lot of different advice and opinions, and also looking at the global competition in terms of getting back to business...

In the meeting he was summarised as saying “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”
Let's hope he recovers ok from his strategy then 
All politicians are concerned about re-election but good luck if it's deemed they put economy before health !

[willie loman]

Explain?

Lockdown will end for political reasons, regardless of where we are at as regards testing, or even vaccine, there will be objections from medical experts, but they will be pushed aside, this is my last word on this thread.

[Beamer]

Lockdown will end for political reasons, regardless of where we are at as regards testing, or even vaccine, there will be objections from medical experts, but they will be pushed aside, this is my last word on this thread.

The politicians have placed great store on Medical knowledge and the Science so far and IMO they will stay on this track. The "experts" probably wouldn't support them on anything but their view. 

[willie loman]

The politicians have placed great store on Medical knowledge and the Science so far and IMO they will stay on this track. The "experts" probably wouldn't support them on anything but their view.

Why are you replying to a troll?

[Beamer]

Why are you replying to a troll?

So it wasn't your last word......
Why spoil a sensible thread?

[David1970]

I believe Dominic Cummings was advocating something along these lines.  I don't remember what the specific quote was that was attributed to him, but it was pretty callous. 

I do think weighing up the pressures of the economy and re-electability is more important to them than simply saving lives.  And right now, they are probably listening to a lot of different advice and opinions, and also looking at the global competition in terms of getting back to business...

One reason for the lockdown is so the NHS can cope, the government does not want photos of people dying on trolleys or hospital floors, not good for re-election. They should only lockdown of the old and ill and let the rest get the virus and slowly end the lockdown. This would mean the hit to the economy would be less and you would probably have the same number of deaths. You would get two spikes, a small percentage of a large group of younger and fitter people and a higher percentage of a smaller group of old and sick. This is based on the premise that you build immunity after having the virus.
I don’t claim to have any special insight or academic training in this field just a layman’s thoughts.
Please feel like free to rip my idea to shreds as I know this site is full of “expert’s”.

[willie loman]

So it wasn't your last word......
Why spoil a sensible thread?

To which you have contributed zero.

[Beamer]

To which you have contributed zero.

So?  Last word syndrome....

[hornyguylondon]

One reason for the lockdown is so the NHS can cope, the government does not want photos of people dying on trolleys or hospital floors, not good for re-election. They should only lockdown of the old and ill and let the rest get the virus and slowly end the lockdown. This would mean the hit to the economy would be less and you would probably have the same number of deaths. You would get two spikes, a small percentage of a large group of younger and fitter people and a higher percentage of a smaller group of old and sick. This is based on the premise that you build immunity after having the virus.
I don’t claim to have any special insight or academic training in this field just a layman’s thoughts.
Please feel like free to rip my idea to shreds as I know this site is full of “expert’s”.

Seems like a sensible approach since whatever happens to the rest, they can say they're protecting the vulnerable - good for the politics 
Surprised if face masks aren't a pre requisite for those who are unlocked..

[hullad]

I would be amazed if the government had a coherent out of lock down policy. Up to now it's been a catalogue of herd immunity which would have murdered hundreds of thousands, it delayed the lock down for a couple of weeks for certain. We are on course for being the highest death toll in Europe and maybe second only to the USA. The Italians and spanish where lambasted for there handling and we are doing far worse. The respirator saga is worthy of
Its own series, missed meetings,  missed European orders, Dyson doing one .... then the racing team all come to zero. Thank god for the Turkish sending hundreds if them and the BBC donating some from Holby city.

I am in the 1.5 million locked down for 12 weeks because I take immune suppressing drugs and I expect to locked in for longer. Could be next year even, who knows certainly not the Government they have not a scooby do. Now they are considering face masks after telling us for months the expert advice was they don't work. We can get Priti Patel to order them in suppose she would not order enough and they will arrive end of next year.

The elderly are locked away on homes dying by the hundred, not counted as even dwad now with more being shipped in daily. The NHS and care homes have not got enough or correct protection it's a complete clusterfuck.

My guess would be for economic reasons they will remove the lock down slowly in around a month. Allowing industry to ramp up along with shops, estate agents etc. Then slowly taking the brake off with the at risk like me told to still isolate. Pubs, restaurants and sport will come off last and maybe not before Sept/October in Italy they are not allowing them till they get immunisation. Foreign  travel will have to be restricted and strict quarantine put in place until we get full immunisation. Having stated that anyone can come in now no checks on anyone, an open door for new strains to come in but let's not stop business in masks etc
.

This virus will change a lot and things will never go back to how it was, we have to change our priorities because if we don't this will keep happening. We may get a better world after all, I hope so for all our sakes.

[cotton]

One reason for the lockdown is so the NHS can cope, the government does not want photos of people dying on trolleys or hospital floors, not good for re-election. They should only lockdown of the old and ill and let the rest get the virus and slowly end the lockdown. This would mean the hit to the economy would be less and you would probably have the same number of deaths. You would get two spikes, a small percentage of a large group of younger and fitter people and a higher percentage of a smaller group of old and sick. This is based on the premise that you build immunity after having the virus.
I don’t claim to have any special insight or academic training in this field just a layman’s thoughts.
Please feel like free to rip my idea to shreds as I know this site is full of “expert’s”.

Yeh id agree with that. Obviously the governments lockdown policy was a pragmatic and necessary response to the virus potentially running out of control. Presumably once the figures start to show things are stabilising they will ease lockdown and play it by ear from then on , while still locking down the vulnerable.
Ive been furloughed till at least June which i think is when the governments furlough scheme lasts until so i dont expect to be returning to work until then.

[paper7]

I don't think there will ever be a definitive day lock down ends. I imagine it will be eased in over weeks and months. I personally can't see the day we go back to sitting in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and other like establishments for many months to come. I think social distancing will be something of the norm for just as long.

It sounds bleak but I just can't get my head round how we can go back to normal if just one person still has the virus. If that was the case surely it would just kick off all over again?

I'd say you're spot on, you can forget 'Normal' for a long, long time.

[paper7]

Lockdown will end for political reasons, regardless of where we are at as regards testing, or even vaccine, there will be objections from medical experts, but they will be pushed aside, this is my last word on this thread.

You might be right, but if we end 'Lockdown' too soon we risk the virus gaining hold again leaving us back at square one.

[HERTSBLUE]

I need a new name for the briefing, tonight it's the Chancellor;

Under the hill
Knickers
Tea table


Must work on this.

What's That all about?

[Niggledebits]

We always follow the lead set by the USA.

Spencer has a good point and for me it is the economic damage caused by the lockdown. That said China has no problem with the government borrowing money and pumping it into their economy which in turn increases investment in their industries.

After years of rebalancing the books with austerity why not take some of Jeremy Corbyn's suggestions and pump money into the economy through public borrowing? Follow Keynesian theory rather than monetarist?

My feeling is that the lockdown will be eased Mid May but social distancing will continue for some time. So pubs / restaurants along with sporting events may see the restrictions eased later possibly late July when this is more in control.

[Beamer]

We always follow the lead set by the USA.

Spencer has a good point and for me it is the economic damage caused by the lockdown. That said China has no problem with the government borrowing money and pumping it into their economy which in turn increases investment in their industries.

After years of rebalancing the books with austerity why not take some of Jeremy Corbyn's suggestions and pump money into the economy through public borrowing? Follow Keynesian theory rather than monetarist?

My feeling is that the lockdown will be eased Mid May but social distancing will continue for some time. So pubs / restaurants along with sporting events may see the restrictions eased later possibly late July when this is more in control.

There is no doubt that the economy will need vast sums of money to ease the prospect of recession/depression that will surely hit many countries.

I hope your timings are right, but fear we are going to see restrictions in place across many areas for a long, long time, especially movement of people, hence to me airlines are in real danger.
There is also no doubt that anyone with "cash" will be able to make a killing on the stock market.

Given the perilous state of the high street even before this crisis, retailing has changed forever.
Unless, some miracle or white knights grasp the issue, commercial property will be the biggest loser. Previously,  a busy high street was a positive sign for investors,  unfortunately those days are well behind us now.
I just hope your timings are right but fear the worst.

[scutty brown]

Very true, although I should imagine lots of companies who don't normally do that sort of thing (but have the equipment to) could and would offer up their services?

Big chemical companies like Ineos perhaps?

No, it will need new large scale facilities. But until you have a confirmed production process then you can't design the new plant. You're at least 16 months from commercial production IF the trials prove positive.
You have to remember there aren't any "spare" vaccine production units lying around unused - they're needed for existing diseases.

[lostandfound]

Report published in "Science" journal, modelling the virus for the next several years suggests one period of lockdown will not be sufficient to control the epidemic. Point made that the model contains assumptions which are as yet unproven - for example people who've had the virus are expected to have some immunity, but how long that immunity will last is unknown.

Headline finding is that social distancing measures may have to continue until 2022. IIRC a recent govt briefing estimated that less than 5% of the population may have been infected so far, which would mean lots of scope for further outbreaks.

Physical distancing measures may need to be in place intermittently until 2022, scientists have warned in an analysis that suggests there could be resurgences of Covid-19 for years to come.

The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that a one-time lockdown will not be sufficient to bring the pandemic under control and that secondary peaks could be larger than the current one without continued restrictions.

One scenario predicted a resurgence could occur as far in the future as 2025 in the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment.

Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard and co-author of the study, said: “Infections spread when there are two things: infected people and susceptible people. Unless there is some enormously larger amount of herd immunity than we’re aware of … the majority of the population is still susceptible.

“Predicting the end of the pandemic in the summer [of 2020] is not consistent with what we know about the spread of infections.”

External Link/Members Only

[scutty brown]

Do we want to return to normal?
The absence of traffic, airborne pollution and other benefits the shutdown has brought gives us a pointer in how to tackle global warming and environmental breakdown. The shutdown has also proved that much of the national and global economy is unneccesary, wasteful and pointless.
We should look at this as the first step to deindustrialisation and deglobalisation

[Beamer]

Do we want to return to normal?
The absence of traffic, airborne pollution and other benefits the shutdown has brought gives us a pointer in how to tackle global warming and environmental breakdown. The shutdown has also proved that much of the national and global economy is unneccesary, wasteful and pointless.
We should look at this as the first step to deindustrialisation and deglobalisation

Great objectives that would benefit the planet and change many situations for the greater good but......
What Government would take it on?

[tobyk1]

Trump bragged on his latest briefing the US has 35 ICU beds per 100K ppl ... compared with 12 ICU beds per 100K in Italy... 9 in Spain ..... 6 in the UK.

God bless ‘free’ healthcare 

[David1970]

Trump bragged on his latest briefing the US has 35 ICU beds per 100K ppl ... compared with 12 ICU beds per 100K in Italy... 9 in Spain ..... 6 in the UK.

God bless ‘free’ healthcare 

It’s not ICU beds that’s important it’s ventilators that are required.

[King Nuts]

We always follow the lead set by the USA.

Spencer has a good point and for me it is the economic damage caused by the lockdown. That said China has no problem with the government borrowing money and pumping it into their economy which in turn increases investment in their industries.

After years of rebalancing the books with austerity why not take some of Jeremy Corbyn's suggestions and pump money into the economy through public borrowing? Follow Keynesian theory rather than monetarist?

My feeling is that the lockdown will be eased Mid May but social distancing will continue for some time. So pubs / restaurants along with sporting events may see the restrictions eased later possibly late July when this is more in control.

China is a one-party dictatorship, run by the gangsters of the Chinese Communist Party. They control pretty much everything that goes on there, and if they want to print more cash to stick into their economy, they're answerable to no-one else.

As regards the UK, we're already horrendously in debt, as a nation. The national debt is something like 87 per cent of GDP and some are predicting that this current situation will mean that the debt could exceed 100 per cent of GDP. We are then technically bankrupt.

As regards the lockdown, my view is that this needs to be looked at piecemeal. I live in a semi-rural location where incidence of infections is low, and there's no real reason why the schools can't re-open and businesses and industries that can handle social distancing shouldn't get going again. Kids may well be unknowing virus-carriers, but even if they are infected, they tend to have a low viral load, and if they infect younger parents and teachers, the impact is likely to be low, and we have the beginnings of so-called herd immunity.

A turn-the-switch-back-on-again strategy won't work. It needs to be managed. County by county, industry by industry, age by age. And at the same time, concentrating on keeping the old folks and vulnerable people safe.

[David1970]

External Link/Members Only

Interesting article on US ventilators and free enterprise

[King Nuts]

Much has been said about ensuring we all follow the government’s new laws regarding ‘lockdown’ and those few who have expressed dissent have been slammed both here and pretty much everywhere.  There is a general consensus among most people that preventing a potentially devastating impact on the NHS meant we must all behave in a way never seen before.

Which, in the short term, seems sensible.

But there are other perspectives to be considered and some of them may appear unpalatable at first glance.  A utilitarian approach that puts the greatest good for the most people may sound sensible, but when that translates into allowing the virus to run through the population in a controlled way, so that it is spread out on a manageable timescale – then most people baulk at the prospect, because there is still a general attitude of preserving life at almost any cost. 

But if we want to return to a world with civil freedoms, a functioning economy and opportunity to have our individual autonomy, then this may be the only way forward.  Personally, I don’t see another plausible route back to normality.
 
We face mass unemployment caused by the economic devastation of lockdown, enormous mental health issues of having a populace confined to their homes by law, more poverty, more oppression and worse austerity than we have known since the war, all of which may ultimately lead to rebellions and conflict between those with power and those without.  Society and civilization will take a massive step backwards if we go down a path of draconian controls, surveillance and an economic policy that causes enormous numbers of dependencies on bailouts and benefits.  We suffered years of austerity to bail out bankers… but the government bailouts here will dwarf 2008 and the possibilities are truly horrific for the future generations.  Is the cure potentially worse than the disease?

While I respect the need to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed in the short term by a tidal wave of covid19 cases, my belief is that it is better for society and civilization to allow and control a slow infection through the population to create a herd immunity and that will inevitably mean hundreds of thousands of premature deaths –but spread out over time.  Relaxing lockdown and reinstating it for short bursts when essential.  Until herd immunity is reached.

I believe current lockdown must end soon or we will all be significantly worse off for generations to come.

I agree with all of this.

[Doc Holliday]

As regards the lockdown, my view is that this needs to be looked at piecemeal. I live in a semi-rural location where incidence of infections is low, and there's no real reason why the schools can't re-open and businesses and industries that can handle social distancing shouldn't get going again. Kids may well be unknowing virus-carriers, but even if they are infected, they tend to have a low viral load, and if they infect younger parents and teachers, the impact is likely to be low, and we have the beginnings of so-called herd immunity.

A turn-the-switch-back-on-again strategy won't work. It needs to be managed. County by county, industry by industry, age by age. And at the same time, concentrating on keeping the old folks and vulnerable people safe.

Yes completely agree .. it has to be managed as you describe but see my previous comments about natural herd immunity. You have to have adequate testing though or you are working blind and the risk of another uncontrollable wave becomes real. For whatever reason we will not have the level of testing required. The 100,000 a day target for the end of month seems impossible, although the government will say that it included a reliable antibody test, which has to date proved elusive.

Sadly, I do not have the confidence that we can manage a situation which will always be something of a 'Morton's Fork'

Re ventilators

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

It has become obvious that no matter how many ventilators you have it will not save many people. For some who contract the virus it comes with the grim reaper also and we are powerless to stop it.

Re Masks for the public. We must have them as part of the process. They have their part to play.

[tobyk1]

Re Masks for the public. We must have them as part of the process. They have their part to play.

Agreed, why are the UK government skirting around the conversation re. Masks for the general public.

Is it a stigma thing?

CDC recommend their usage, and have thousands of Americans at home trying to make their own out of bed sheets and spare material. Meanwhile Singapore are easing lockdown with it being mandatory for those outside to wear masks.

Maybe it’s all a plot for Boris’ big return, he’ll have a mask with him and tell us all ‘to start to think about wearing them’. Smh.

Better yet, perhaps some WGs will start to make them mandatory too ... lol.

[Doc Holliday]

Is it a stigma thing?

No it's a financial thing. It predates any of this and is based on a cost/benefit analysis within healthcare settings.

[cotton]

Do we want to return to normal?
The absence of traffic, airborne pollution and other benefits the shutdown has brought gives us a pointer in how to tackle global warming and environmental breakdown. The shutdown has also proved that much of the national and global economy is unneccesary, wasteful and pointless.
We should look at this as the first step to deindustrialisation and deglobalisation

For as long as i can remember expanding the economy has been at the core of government  policy , bringing prosperity, progress and better standards of living but as time has gone on it seems to have increasingly become like the tail wagging the dog to the point that nowadays our society relys on having an expanding economy , the govt needs an expanding economy to meet its liabilities and pay its debts , and persuant to this all governments are inexorably tied to population growth because population growth stimulates the economy , so meanwhile all governments keep spinning more and more plates in the air just kicking the long term issues down the road for the next generation and every year the population gets bigger and the potential for mass civil unrest gets bigger. Because one thing this crisis has shown is that any disruption in the food supply chain and everythings gone to shit and there will be anarchy.
So i would agree with you - if you equate our society like an engine running at max speed , overheating and about to explode , we need to take our foot off the gas and look at another system of economic distribution rather than working us like hamsters on the wheel , the meaning of money has become kinda meaningless anyway , its just shifting numbers that nobody seems to understand these days anyway. 

[tobyk1]

No it's a financial thing. It predates any of this and is based on a cost/benefit analysis within healthcare settings.

What? No it’s not - I’m talking about just telling the public that masks are effective against containing bacterial spread, like US and Asian leaders have.  That doesn’t cost anything.

Trumps even said to wear scarves over your mouths haha.

[winkywanky]

No, it will need new large scale facilities. But until you have a confirmed production process then you can't design the new plant. You're at least 16 months from commercial production IF the trials prove positive.
You have to remember there aren't any "spare" vaccine production units lying around unused - they're needed for existing diseases.

I would be very surprised if a new vaccine takes 'the usual amount of time' to be available for general use. Although there will be an amount of forced optimism about this to try and keep the public happy (or less suicidal, at least) there are lots of noises coming from both industry and scientists. I should imagine the big Pharma companies will hate this of course.

With PPE items, many manufacturers new to the game are stepping up, I don't think it'll be much different for the vaccine. Obviously manufacturing a new vaccine is an infinitely long way from stitiching some fabric masks together in safety terms but enormous companies like Ineos with huge resources will be looking to get involved for altruistic/PR reasons as well being paid of course. As Doc H. pointed out earlier (and has been mooted on the News), I think vaccines will start to be produced in anticipation of being approved for public use. If they don't get approved then they'll have to be disposed of and start again, but we are in very desperate and unprecedented times. Who would take the monetary risk of that I have no idea, but I can see this happening.

I think the usual rules will be chucked out the window to a degree, I know nothing about the field and presumably there's all kinds of highly-regulated and technical licensing which needs to be done. But I'm sure this is already being looked at, bearing in mnd the circumstances. Who knows, maybe it will shake up the Pharma world and change its future for the common good?

But we'll see  .

[catweazle]

Part of the problem is that before very much longer, Joe public will get bored with lockdown. A controlled, degree by degree, unlock has to follow. Maybe some 'non essential' shops reopening, some office work ( with appropriate distancing) resuming, and low risk age groups being freed up.

[Doc Holliday]

What? No it’s not - I’m talking about just telling the public that masks are effective against containing bacterial spread, like US and Asian leaders have.  That doesn’t cost anything.

Trumps even said to wear scarves over your mouths haha.

Apologies I was talking historically. The UK has used the conflicting and very limited science in the cost/benefit analysis to devalue the widespread use of masks in healthcare settings for years prior to all this.

To admit they may now be of use would require a considerable policy U turn. They have clung to this position because they know we would not have sufficient quantities of masks to implement the policy .. we don't even have enough for those on the front line. They are now becoming increasingly isolated in this view and will have to back down which IMO is the correct decision.

[Spencer Fobby]

I would be very surprised if a new vaccine takes 'the usual amount of time' to be available for general use.

Would you be happy to take a vaccine that had not undergone the usual rigour in terms of testing and safety?  And if there are large swathes of anti vaxxers refusing to take it, what then?  Taking vaccines are not legally enforced yet... But will the government pass legislation to force every citizen to take a vaccine that has been rushed to market?

Hmmm

[Spencer Fobby]

Meanwhile, this was an interesting read:

External Link/Members Only

The U.K. government’s lack of transparency about the epidemiological models and reasoning behind the policies, and default to utilitarian calculations shows that past two decades of public health/global health ethics scholarship has had little impact. Of particular concern, at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens’ lives are at stake, the British leadership is reverting to what Bernard Williams scathingly described as “Government House Utilitarianism.” That is, some of the great advocates of utilitarianism argued that secrecy may be necessary to achieve a utilitarian conclusion, as the uneducated might not understand the ambiguity or complexity, much less find it palatable.

[bbois77]

Vaccine...... Red herring, fantasy medicine, waste of resources, far better to go down AIDS/HIV route, develop medication to contain or dampen worse effects of virus, ie you then bolster bodies immune system so survival rates multiply.

Exit route ..... Mass produce N95 masks, everyone wear one in crowded locations, trains, tube, flights, close environments of work....... Restaurants.... A bit more difficult.

World gets back to semi normality by autumn, keep safe guys.

[daviemac]

Vaccine...... Red herring, fantasy medicine, waste of resources, far better to go down AIDS/HIV route, develop medication to contain or dampen worse effects of virus, ie you then bolster bodies immune system so survival rates multiply.

Exit route ..... Mass produce N95 masks, everyone wear one in crowded locations, trains, tube, flights, close environments of work....... Restaurants.... A bit more difficult.

World gets back to semi normality by autumn, keep safe guys.

Can't see how that's going to work, it's a virus. If you catch it mild symptoms are treated with over-the-counter medication, cough medicine and paracetamol etc. if it affects you badly there's nothing they can do other than put you on a ventilator and hope. There is no cure. They need to develop a vaccine like they have and do for flu. Why would they want to waist time developing something that doesn't prevent it?

[winkywanky]

Would you be happy to take a vaccine that had not undergone the usual rigour in terms of testing and safety? And if there are large swathes of anti vaxxers refusing to take it, what then?  Taking vaccines are not legally enforced yet... But will the government pass legislation to force every citizen to take a vaccine that has been rushed to market?

Hmmm

Of course not, but the enormous simultaneous and unprecedented effort around the world will hopefully quicken what normally takes ages.

There's plenty of 'anti-vaxxers' around already (leading to a rise in Measles etc as we know) but this is one occasion when they'll be the ones to put themselves at risk rather than others. I suspect as others take it successfully many of them will stop believing all the shit posted up on Facebook for once.

Enforced vaccine-taking is something that has already been spoken about with pre-existing, already-proven vaccines, who knows whether this will become the case with a Covid-19 vaccine? Perhaps it will after the high risk groups have been 'done'?

[winkywanky]

Can't see how that's going to work, it's a virus. If you catch it mild symptoms are treated with over-the-counter medication, cough medicine and paracetamol etc. if it affects you badly there's nothing they can do other than put you on a ventilator and hope. There is no cure. They need to develop a vaccine like they have and do for flu. Why would they want to waste time developing something that doesn't prevent it?

Agreed.

Although simultaneously working on better treatments is also very worthwhile, and being done simultaneously?

There's huge international effort going into both means of attack against Covid.

[Doc Holliday]

Vaccine...... Red herring, fantasy medicine, waste of resources, far better to go down AIDS/HIV route, develop medication to contain or dampen worse effects of virus, ie you then bolster bodies immune system so survival rates multiply.

Exit route ..... Mass produce N95 masks, everyone wear one in crowded locations, trains, tube, flights, close environments of work....... Restaurants.... A bit more difficult.

World gets back to semi normality by autumn, keep safe guys.

Other than the fact they are both viruses the analogy with HIV is seriously flawed. That said scientists/medics would love to have a vaccine for HIV as the first line treatment for Africa, but all attempts to date have failed.

I'm an advocate of masks as part of an overall strategy, but their impact alone is relatively small.

[Spencer Fobby]

Of course not, but the enormous simultaneous and unprecedented effort around the world will hopefully quicken what normally takes ages.

Oh and just to be clear, my question was not meant in the slightest way confrontationally - I know that can be seen as the default tone sometimes.  Its was more a 'would one be happy to take a vaccine...blah blah.'  Me, I'm not an anti vaxxer, but I am a natural born sceptic when it comes to authority and business, especially when the two are combined.

[winkywanky]

Oh and just to be clear, my question was not meant in the slightest way confrontationally - I know that can be seen as the default tone sometimes.  Its was more a 'would one be happy to take a vaccine...blah blah.'  Me, I'm not an anti vaxxer, but I am a natural born sceptic when it comes to authority and business, especially when the two are combined.

It wasn't taken as such 

[Kev40ish]

I'm an advocate of masks as part of an overall strategy, but their impact alone is relatively small.

What I find confusing is the fact it divides scientific opinion so much, as to the need and effectiveness of  them.

I’m a simple person either they work or they don’t...

[Doc Holliday]

Would you be happy to take a vaccine that had not undergone the usual rigour in terms of testing and safety?  And if there are large swathes of anti vaxxers refusing to take it, what then?  Taking vaccines are not legally enforced yet... But will the government pass legislation to force every citizen to take a vaccine that has been rushed to market?

Hmmm

Further to my other post it will have undergone the usual rigour and testing albeit fast tracked. Getting a vaccine that is affective will be a much bigger hurdle than it's safety.

I doubt a government would need to enforce a vaccine on us. After seeing the deaths and the economic meltdown the overwhelming majority would be forming a queue. The anti vaxxers would be a very small component.

[winkywanky]

What I find confusing is the fact it divides scientific opinion so much, as to the need and effectiveness of  them.

I’m a simple person either they work or they don’t...

There's masks and masks.

There's medical grade ones which seal perfectly around the lower face and get changed for a fresh one a few times a day in a hospital environment. And there's ones Joe Public will get off Amazon or eBay and probably re-use.

The virus is able to get in via your eyes anyway (perhaps to a lesser degree, I have no idea).

When you wear a mask it will get damp and the virus may be able to pass through it (perhaps more dangerous for a mask-wearing virus receiver than a giver?).

If you have a mask to wear, will you start subconsciously being less careful with other aspects of prevention?

Nothing is simple 

[winkywanky]

I'm not suggesting they wouldn't be a good idea by the way. Just playing Devil's advocate.

[hornyguylondon]

There's masks and masks.

There's medical grade ones which seal perfectly around the lower face and get changed for a fresh one a few times a day in a hospital environment. And there's ones Joe Public will get off Amazon or eBay and probably re-use.

The virus is able to get in via your eyes anyway (perhaps to a lesser degree, I have no idea).

When you wear a mask it will get damp and the virus may be able to pass through it (perhaps more dangerous for a mask-wearing virus receiver than a giver?).

If you have a mask to wear, will you start subconsciously being less careful with other aspects of prevention?

Nothing is simple 

If masks don't provide protection why is everyone complaining that our NHS staff don't have them ?
It's not just to protect the patient as the main thrust is the staff need protection !

Masks will probably be worn post lockdown and I suspect the real reason they don't want the public wearing them now is to protect their supplies.

[Doc Holliday]

What I find confusing is the fact it divides scientific opinion so much, as to the need and effectiveness of  them.

I’m a simple person either they work or they don’t...

As a simple person your instinct would be that by putting a barrier across your mouth and nose it must have some positive effect? We are after all told to cough/sneeze into a tissue or elbow.

We would never question the surgeon wearing a mask to prevent infection of the operating site? But then along comes scientific research. The research is sparse because it is an extremely difficult study to carry out. What research exists, is unsurprisingly conflicting.

Decisions become 'evidence based' and because there is no conclusive evidence that they are effective, the default position in the UK  is therefore their widespread use cannot be justified. Cynically this is very convenient for the cost/benefit analysis. Disposable gloves are the same.

But this evidence based approach is now being questioned in favour of the precautionary approach ie give it the benefit of the doubt. External Link/Members Only

It has to be part of an overall cross infection strategy though and people must be aware of mask limitations. Eyes also need to be protected and for maximum protection it needs everyone to wear masks when in contact with others.