But isn't Boris downplaying the effects of herd immunity? Thus, if 50 million are infected, that's 500, 000 deaths, assuming 1% rate. Of course, it may not reach 50 million.
Also a question of beds, plus ventilator. Irish govt is looking at sports halls, etc.
I can't reconcile the different statements made.
Vallance said (this morning):
“Our aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it. Those are the key things we need to do.”
Some immunity will build up in the population anyway, as a large proportion of infected people recover. But to have herd immunity protecting the population you need between 30m and 50m (depending on infection rates) to have become immune. As you say this would also mean a huge number of deaths unless there is some way to isolate the vulnerable from infection.
Similarly, to flatten the peak by allowing infection to spread (faster than it would in a lock down) only makes sense if you want to flatten the spread by bringing forward some proportion of critical cases to use spare capacity you have now - and might not have later.
It seems to me that if they want people to have confidence in their plans they need to reveal more details of the models, inputs and outputs they are using.
btw: An article that might indicate where the idea of using herd immunity as part of the plan came from here:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-uk-coronavirus-robert-peston In the meantime I am glad that sports authorities and other event organizers and employers are making sensible decisions to help support social distancing off their own bat.
