Harry-Kari
Vital 1st Team Regular
The point of this study, if the prediction is accurate, is that nowhere near enough people have been infected to produce herd immunity.I'm not sure what you're point is anymore - that we shouldn't have had a lockdown and we should have just let it rip, so had double, maybe even triple the deaths?
The lockdown has worked, but we now have a regional issue where some have and are still following social distancing rules and some aren't (mainly up 'north) and there the infection remains stubbornly higher than elsewhere.
If as some scientists are predicting it slows almost to a dead halt because of the measures taken by the end of June, then the lock down has been a success - the only arguable point then for me is that probably should have imposed it sooner.
Lockdown may well have produced a large population of uninfected people but the virus isn’t going anywhere, so without a vaccine infections are bound to rise, but that doesn’t mean a doomsday pr3diction of hundreds of thousands of deaths as an estimated 95% of infected people survive and the IFR rate for the UK is yet to be accurately assessed. In many studies around the world the IFR rate is practically the same as for influenza...in some cases lower....so the issue will be has the flattening of the economy been justified....we will see.