Back
to top
What is the government's aim?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
The only aim I can see at the moment is that they hope people gain immunity and that it passes slowly throughout the population to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed.
The lockdown is nowhere near severe enough and wasn't put in place quick enough to have any massive impact on the spread, shown as the virus is clearly still spreading in the population even a month after lockdown began.
What are they actually aiming for now?
The lockdown is nowhere near severe enough and wasn't put in place quick enough to have any massive impact on the spread, shown as the virus is clearly still spreading in the population even a month after lockdown began.
What are they actually aiming for now?
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Treetop321)
The only aim I can see at the moment is that they hope people gain immunity and that it passes slowly throughout the population to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed.
The lockdown is nowhere near severe enough and wasn't put in place quick enough to have any massive impact on the spread, shown as the virus is clearly still spreading in the population even a month after lockdown began.
What are they actually aiming for now?
The only aim I can see at the moment is that they hope people gain immunity and that it passes slowly throughout the population to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed.
The lockdown is nowhere near severe enough and wasn't put in place quick enough to have any massive impact on the spread, shown as the virus is clearly still spreading in the population even a month after lockdown began.
What are they actually aiming for now?
And the lockdown is having a huge impact on the spread. There was no realistic chance of removing it from circulation within the space of a month, but the speed of spread has been significantly reduced.
0
reply
(Original post by Neilos)
The same thing most of the world is aiming for, and what appears to be the most sensible option... attempting to get the country running as best it can, while ensuring the health service isn't overwhelmed, until a treatment can be found for the virus.
And the lockdown is having a huge impact on the spread. There was no realistic chance of removing it from circulation within the space of a month, but the speed of spread has been significantly reduced.
The same thing most of the world is aiming for, and what appears to be the most sensible option... attempting to get the country running as best it can, while ensuring the health service isn't overwhelmed, until a treatment can be found for the virus.
And the lockdown is having a huge impact on the spread. There was no realistic chance of removing it from circulation within the space of a month, but the speed of spread has been significantly reduced.
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Treetop321)
So the speed of the spread has been reduced. What then though? What happens when the current rules are relaxed?
So the speed of the spread has been reduced. What then though? What happens when the current rules are relaxed?
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Treetop321)
So the speed of the spread has been reduced. What then though? What happens when the current rules are relaxed?
So the speed of the spread has been reduced. What then though? What happens when the current rules are relaxed?
0
reply
Report
#6
As most people have said, the purpose of the ‘lockdown’, in particular social distancing measures, is to protect the NHS by reducing the number of individuals requiring care at the same time by slowing down the spread of the virus. The aim of this was to make sure everybody isn’t requiring hospital beds or ICUs at the same time to stop hospitals becoming overwhelmed.
Going into any type of lockdown for however long doesn’t mean the virus will just go away, that’s not how it works. Only it itself can do that or with the introduction of a vaccine.. which will take while to be approved and distributed worldwide.
In particular, I don’t think a strict lockdown is effective when you’re not testing enough people and don’t even know who is sick. Countries testing people effectively and isolating them accordingly have had less deaths- the best policy would be to test as many people as possible, quarantine the sick and isolate anybody who may have come into contact with them. Not shove everybody into a quarantine scenario and simply not test enough people, and only offer tests to those with symptoms. My dad was offered tests as he’s a key worker, but for us to get them too we would have to be showing symptoms. It’s ridiculous.
Some places in China went into full lockdown and they’re seeing a second wave. The best way to handle this is through mass testing, which our country is behind on. We could be isolating the sick with the healthy for all we know.
Basically we can’t stay inside forever and just hope the virus will go away thus they will start lifting measures when deemed safe to do so, starting with things that pose the less likely risk of increasing the spread again such as seeing a small number of family members and friends.
Going into any type of lockdown for however long doesn’t mean the virus will just go away, that’s not how it works. Only it itself can do that or with the introduction of a vaccine.. which will take while to be approved and distributed worldwide.
In particular, I don’t think a strict lockdown is effective when you’re not testing enough people and don’t even know who is sick. Countries testing people effectively and isolating them accordingly have had less deaths- the best policy would be to test as many people as possible, quarantine the sick and isolate anybody who may have come into contact with them. Not shove everybody into a quarantine scenario and simply not test enough people, and only offer tests to those with symptoms. My dad was offered tests as he’s a key worker, but for us to get them too we would have to be showing symptoms. It’s ridiculous.
Some places in China went into full lockdown and they’re seeing a second wave. The best way to handle this is through mass testing, which our country is behind on. We could be isolating the sick with the healthy for all we know.
Basically we can’t stay inside forever and just hope the virus will go away thus they will start lifting measures when deemed safe to do so, starting with things that pose the less likely risk of increasing the spread again such as seeing a small number of family members and friends.
Last edited by username5133584; 8 months ago
1
reply
Report
#7
Their aim has not be published. They like to think a lockdown can be in place until a vaccine but that could be over a year away and it is impossible to continue in lockdown for that long. The exit strategy should be becoming like Sweden.
1
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by It’s Jacob)
Their aim has not be published. They like to think a lockdown can be in place until a vaccine but that could be over a year away and it is impossible to continue in lockdown for that long. The exit strategy should be becoming like Sweden.
Their aim has not be published. They like to think a lockdown can be in place until a vaccine but that could be over a year away and it is impossible to continue in lockdown for that long. The exit strategy should be becoming like Sweden.
1
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Napp)
Do nothing and see what happens?
Do nothing and see what happens?
Lift the lockdown, prioritise care for those without underlying conditions and say goodbye to the vulnerable. I see it as survival of the fittest.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by It’s Jacob)
I would rather vulnerable people die than the lockdown.
I would rather vulnerable people die than the lockdown.
You have no sole.
2
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by It’s Jacob)
Listen to the interviews with their health officer, it is more nuanced than that but in effect, yes. I would rather vulnerable people die than the lockdown. The lockdown does not prevent death directly, it delays the spread to allow ICU capacity to increase and cope with the severe cases when people catch it later. ICU capacity has now increased to the point where it can be given to the people without underlying conditions and a severe reaction to covid over vulnerable people.
Lift the lockdown, prioritise care for those without underlying conditions and say goodbye to the vulnerable. I see it as survival of the fittest.
Listen to the interviews with their health officer, it is more nuanced than that but in effect, yes. I would rather vulnerable people die than the lockdown. The lockdown does not prevent death directly, it delays the spread to allow ICU capacity to increase and cope with the severe cases when people catch it later. ICU capacity has now increased to the point where it can be given to the people without underlying conditions and a severe reaction to covid over vulnerable people.
Lift the lockdown, prioritise care for those without underlying conditions and say goodbye to the vulnerable. I see it as survival of the fittest.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by ByEeek)
You have no sole.
You have no sole.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
