No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. The ICUs in Italy and Hubei were filled, for the most part, with elderly patients. The math, such as it is, checks out.
The risk management analysis, again, is IMHO batshit crazy. But the theory seems about as sound as it could be given the data we have.
> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population.
It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is able to keep 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care, which so far is the expected incidence of cases that require medical care.
If that was the case then no one would be bothered with yet another flu-like viral infection.
> the expected incidence of cases that require medical care.
Among the general population!
Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again).
The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is not the stated UK policy.
> Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2%
Any chance you remember where you found this statistic? I have been looking for any details on hospitalization rates by age range, but haven't had luck so far.
Estimates are closer to 10% of the infected getting severe cases, and some small-ish fraction of those requiring intensive care. (The higher percentage numbers are usually an artifact of low testing rates of infected people.)
Also, epidemiology suggests that 20-70% will get it. So, we’re looking at ~1% of the population in the hospital at once.
The rest of your points stand; we don’t have nearly enough hospital capacity for 1% of the population.
Note that with a two week active phase, the pandemic would have to drag on for 20 weeks to get that number to 0.1%. I doubt there is capacity for that either.
The plan also relies on flattening the curve like other countries' plans. They're just calculating that people won't stay in lockdown for months, and that if they put one in place now people will start emerging just in time to hit the peak of the infections.
No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. The ICUs in Italy and Hubei were filled, for the most part, with elderly patients. The math, such as it is, checks out.
The risk management analysis, again, is IMHO batshit crazy. But the theory seems about as sound as it could be given the data we have.