[ukmicky (OP)]

Currently we  are on wave two.  At some stage everything will be shut  down and we will  reduce the R number enough to reopen everything and then along will come wave 3 and so on and so on.

So basically this is with us for a long time if we continue to deal with it in the way we currently are. .  So i was thinking like others, is the best way forward for the country to open up with no restrictions apart from those who need to shield due to age or a condition that makes them vulnerable and let everyone else catch it  so most of the population become immune preventing its transmission.

However I then had another thought (i have many, some say I have too many)  Does having antibodies against a virus prevent you actually catching that  virus . Is it like I was told after my flu jab that I can still catch the flu but it wont be a bad case.  If I can still catch a  virus even though i have antibodies against it and therefore will still be able to pass it on, a future vaccine or  herd immunity of the general population wont help us  eradicate it and could actually make things worse as there may be more people walking around with the virus but no symptoms . 

So am I right in my thinking or wrong ,where Neilep when you need him.

[evan_au]

The problem with dropping all restrictions is that the number of cases will explode.
- When hospitals get overloaded, medical care is reserved for those most likely to recover, ie old people are not treated (in Italy, at one stage, apparently anyone over 40 was not getting admitted to Intensive Care).
- With high rates of COVID-19 infection in the community, medical and aged-care workers are likely to get infected, and spread it to more patients.
- I am sure that is distressing to doctors who are committed to healing people
- There are many people who take months to recover from a bout of COVID-19. That will have a long-lasting burden on society and the economy.

By "flattening the curve", we are allowing more time to develop and test improved treatments, so that those who are infected are more likely to recover, and to face fewer long-term health impacts.

Like everything, there is a tradeoff between the economic & health impacts of different approaches.
- Different countries will take different approaches
- At the end, we may be able to look back and see which ones were more effective

Comparisons have already been made between Sweden (which had a fairly open, voluntary policy similar to the OP suggestion) and neighboring Scandinavian countries (which had a tighter lockdown).
- Sweden had higher fatalities
- Whether the Swedish economy fares better remains to be seen
- In the end, it comes back to "how much is a life worth?" (and some will ask "how much is an old life worth?")

Some medical statisticians calculate overall health policy tradeoffs by Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) or Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year

[Petrochemicals]

Despite what the governments media and anyone else tell you we are not ""on the second wave. A second wave is the reimmergence of a virus given unrestrained pervasion through a populace. This is the control of the first wave being eased. Second wave of Spanish flu was a mutation that did the damage of mass casualties amongst the young and healthy, the first wave gave the populace a substantial resistance to the mutation.

Yes herd immunity, people are suffering in other ways, cancer heart attacks are not in a good way. Shield the vulnerable and let it pass. Given that 2000 students 'up north' have the virus we will get a very clear picture of how dangerous this virus is to anyone under the age of 65 without health conditions, mortality at 2 percent means expect 40 deaths, if not suicides amongst the students are a greater worry!

[Bored chemist]

Despite what the governments media and anyone else tell you we are not ""on the second wave. A second wave is the reimmergence of a virus given unrestrained pervasion through a populace. This is the control of the first wave being eased. Second wave of Spanish flu was a mutation that did the damage of mass casualties amongst the young and healthy, the first wave gave the populace a substantial resistance to the mutation.

Yes herd immunity, people are suffering in other ways, cancer heart attacks are not in a good way. Shield the vulnerable and let it pass. Given that 2000 students 'up north' have the virus we will get a very clear picture of how dangerous this virus is to anyone under the age of 65 without health conditions, mortality at 2 percent means expect 40 deaths, if not suicides amongst the students are a greater worry!

Could not parse.

[ukmicky (OP)]

Evan-eu you say the hospitals will explode but we now know a lot more about this virus and how to treat those who get it . Provided we  shield those who are vulnerable what happened previously in our hospitals shouldn't happen again. Not only that locking everything down will cause deaths as people will stay away from hospitals preventing  other conditions being noticed until it's to late


However I noticed there is no awnser to my question in regards to immunity .Do we really become immune if we get antibodies against this virus through herd immunity or vaccination. Or is it more of the case that we can still catch it but as our bodies have a head start we just don't get it as bad . Because if that is the case then it will never be eradicated as there will always be people who can pass it on and therefore it  could in theory be with us forever .
And if it is gonna be with us forever and as we can't keep locking everything down  every 3 months and that approach will eventually stop due to the financial impact  what's the point in us locking everything down again now.  Should we not instead be bold and decide on another way forward now such as only shielding the vulnerable.

Even if that was the way forward however I doubt anyone in a real position of authority would be brave enough to go against the current belief that the only way forward is lockdown .

[alancalverd]

Problem is that COVID symptoms are not binary - "death or recovery".There is a very wide spectrum of persistent disability, and no evidence of lifelong immunity after apparent recovery. Added to which, the economic and social impact of knowing that you might kill someone by simply talking to them, even though you have no reason to believe you are ill, is beyond most people's experience.

A society with endemic COVID would be very different from anything we have imagined: everyone is a threat to everyone else, like the most repressive regimes except that the viral "secret police" has no motive and just kills or disables people at random.

Natural  herd immunity is actually the immunity of the survivors. So you might return to a normal-ish society if you are prepared to tolerate the immediate loss of around 5% of the population followed by a reduced life expectancy and endemic disability until the population reduces to those who are genetically tolerant of infection. This has happened to fruit bats and grey squirrels, which have evolved by elimination into fairly stable populations but would, I think, be considered undesirable by most humans, especially those who are genetically analogous to red squirrels - and at present we don't know who they are.

The upside is that a human population limited to 20% of the current number would be indefinitely sustainable at a very comfortable standard of living. But achieving it by viral selection means there is an 80% probability that you and your descendants would not be among them.   

[alancalverd]

I doubt anyone in a real position of authority would be brave enough to go against the current belief that the only way forward is lockdown .

In the absence of vaccines and antibiotics, that is how our predecessors eliminated bubonic plague, and is the means by which we are currently preventing the spread of ebola and a few other tropical nasties.  COVID is a bit more complicated because asymptomatic people are infectious, but the national quarantine ("lockdown" is a punishment, quarantine is a preventive) need only last a few weeks. That's a lot quicker, and vastly more effective and less harmful, than trying to develop a vaccine whilst lethal carriers stalk the streets and classrooms.

It will require the sacrifice of a few politicians, so there's no downside.   

[Petrochemicals]

Even if that was the way forward however I doubt anyone in a real position of authority would be brave enough to go against the current belief that the only way forward is lockdown .

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/06/scientists-call-for-herd-immunity-covid-strategy-for-young
Followed by
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

It was only a few days ago actually.

[ukmicky (OP)]

The problem is the way we are dealing with COVID 19 at the moment is no sustainable  . The government cant keep  borrowing forever and the financial well being of the UK will at some stage have to take precedence . If we must make changes to how we are dealing with the pandemic then there are not that many options available to us and forcing the population of the UK onto the herd immunity road map is the only other real option available .

Apparently  less than 600 hundred  people below the age of 45 have died of COVID  19 .and many of those 600 probably had an existing condition.  So next question i suppose is , if you locked down all the vulnerable with an existing condition as well as all those over 45 and then allowed everyone under 45 to catch it,  would enough of the population have then caught it for herd immunity to work . ?

Yes you will have a few who may suffer in the long term with long COVID   but if herd immunity was achieved would the long term reduced death toll make it worthwhile.


Edit
As I was writing /posting that Petrochemicals posted his links above

PS Hi to everyone I haven't spoken to in many years .  I see at least Bored chemist is still about after all these years .

[evan_au]

The government can't keep  borrowing forever...

I think a lot of governments are borrowing at the moment. But they can't all be borrowing!
- Who is lending the money?
- Maybe they are borrowing from China, which apparently has a lot of foreign exchange available, after years of positive trade balances...

Eventually, some countries will decide to just print more money (which causes its own form of economic chaos in the form of inflation).

[acsinuk]

Lockdown is really a nuisance to the economy and should be used only as a very last resort if the Nightingale ICU wards become overloaded.  People under retirement  age should be allowed to work normally but mask up and avoid large crowds.  Retired people should be extra careful not to get within 2 metres of other people particularly if their health is not good.  No draconian measures will then be necessary

[Bored chemist]

if the Nightingale ICU wards become overloaded.

OK,
Since they can't find enough staff they are overloaded.
(without medical staff, a hospital is a shed.)

So, by your analysis we should start the lockdown now.

and avoid large crowds. 

If everybody is part of a small overlapping crowd, then epidemiologically, they are all part of the same large crowd.

Retired people should be extra careful not to get within 2 metres of other people

Once , as a consequence of this, they have all starved to death, the problem will be much less severe.

[alancalverd]

People under retirement  age should be allowed to work normally but mask up and avoid large crowds.  Retired people should be extra careful not to get within 2 metres of other people particularly if their health is not good.

....for ever, regardless of the harm to themselves, society, and the holy economy.

Government is about making choices between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. National quarantine is unpalatable, endemic disease is unacceptable.

Boris Johnson tries to speak like Churchill but his puppetmaster thinks like Chamberlain. You cannot negotiate with a virus.

[Bored chemist]

https://god.dailydot.com/who-director-herd-immunity/?fbclid=IwAR05l11QiS6NqrsIAPdPvwWeW9h2Zobtg4YE071odY63mzngAhR9V9LS_KQ

[alancalverd]

It's interesting that the sort of people who advocate herd immunity for COVID are pretty much those who denigrate vaccination - the only proven route (apart from centuries of Darwinian decimation) to herd immunity.

[ukmicky (OP)]

Which then gets to a question which I previously asked .if my doctor says I can still catch the flu even though I’ve had the flu vaccine but won’t get It bad If I do, Would  I still be able able to catch Covid 19 after I’ve had the Covid 19 vaccine.

[Petrochemicals]

It's interesting that the sort of people who advocate herd immunity for COVID are pretty much those who denigrate vaccination - the only proven route (apart from centuries of Darwinian decimation) to herd immunity.

To be devicive, vaccine development does not usually shut down society. Polio vaccine invented 1955, us declared polio free 1979, now having see pictures of Woodstock and 'happydays' I do not believe that the US lockdown was as severe for polio as it is now, the young folks did a bit of socialising.

[alancalverd]

Which then gets to a question which I previously asked .if my doctor says I can still catch the flu even though I’ve had the flu vaccine but won’t get It bad If I do, Would  I still be able able to catch Covid 19 after I’ve had the Covid 19 vaccine.

You certainly won't get whichever flu you have been vaccinated against, as seriously as if you had not been vaccinated. But as flu viruses mutate very quickly, your vaccine is based on a best guess of the next flu and may not work at all.

There is enough evidence of  COVID reinfection after recovery, that the longterm effectiveness of a vaccine is questionable.

[alancalverd]

To be devicive, vaccine development does not usually shut down society. Polio vaccine invented 1955, us declared polio free 1979, now having see pictures of Woodstock and 'happydays' I do not believe that the US lockdown was as severe for polio as it is now, the young folks did a bit of socialising.

And there you have the problem. Salk vaccine was declared effective in 1953 and was available worldwide by 1955 but it took nearly a quarter of a century to eliminate the disease in the USA.

[Bored chemist]

Would  I still be able able to catch Covid 19 after I’ve had the Covid 19 vaccine.

The reason we are not all getting vaccinated is that they are still testing the vaccine...
We can't know how well it will work. (Just think of the ethics.)