Earlier lockdown could have prevented three-quarters of UK coronavirus deaths

[papasmurf]

 We will only get that when its all done and dusted and pandemic 'experts' from left wing news outlets guessing scenarios doesn't help .



The dogs should have been left to lie

The Torygraph left wing? What are you smoking?

[Streetwalker]

We will never know if an earlier semi lockdown would have prevented deaths any more than closing the borders or indeed having a full lockdown . Looking at what other countries have done or not done in hindsight does give some indication of where we got it right or wrong but doesn't give the whole picture . We will only get that when its all done and dusted and pandemic 'experts' from left wing news outlets guessing scenarios doesn't help .



The dogs should have been left to lie

[Javert]

I was thinking of posting this, but since the original claim came from the BBC "More or Less" program, I was also considering to let sleeping dogs lie.



However the Telegraph, that left wing liberal news source, has also run with the story too.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/earlier-lockdown-could-have-prevented-three-quarters-uk-coronavirus/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ronavirus/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/earlier-lockdown-could-have-prevented-three-quarters-uk-coronavirus/



Basically - this is one of the same models that's been used to model the pandemic (there are many), and one which reasonably accurately predicted the 35k or so deaths we have up to now when plugged with the best known assumptions.



If you plug the same model with the lockdown starting just one week earlier, the number of deaths in the UK so far would be similar to Germany at about 8000.  So just a one week difference would move us from the worst in Europe to on a par with the best.



This might sound odd for just one week, but it's because of the exponential growth of the virus and the doubling rate of about 3 days that was happening.  If you assume that only one lockdown will be necessary and you will ease it off in parts after introducing a proper track and trace mechanism, you should and must introduce the lockdown early - in fact, you should introduce it at a time when a lot of people will think "isn't this a bit of an overreaction".



If that had been done, we would be in a much better position now both from a lives saved point of view, and economically as we would have few enough cases for track and trace to be 100% effective.



Of course, if many of those countries that did the lockdown earlier in their cycle, have a second wave and we don't (unlikely but possible), this could change the long term conclusion.  However, nothing I've seen indicates that we have anything like enough immunity to avoid a second wave.



This will be a major part of the eventual Public Inquiry - why wasn't the lockdown introduced a week earlier.  In any honourable country, the PM should take 100% responsibility for that regardless of the details, however, no doubt they will all try to blame each other.



The key question will be - was this avoidable at the time, or only in hindsight.  From what I've seen so far, I believe it's the former but we will see.



This is not even being talked about much yet, but that's 27,000 avoidable deaths because a decision that obviously needed to be taken was delayed ane prevaricated for a week.



Of course, for balance, all statistical models are rubbish and the opposite is the truth....  :fpigs: