> The strategy of UK seems valid as long as you protect the more vulnerable, which they don't do.

The UK and devolved governments signaled on Thursday that the plan is for the vulnerable to be self-isolating for a long period; and based on the briefings to UK jornos on twitter - it'll be 16 weeks of self isolation for over 70s and those with underlying health conditions (they've not said what conditions yet) - I've seen it referred to as 'cocooning' by some.

I think the UK was doing a really good job, and has been doing a good job with this - I do think they've really misspoken when they've talked about herd immunity and have been trying to walk the term back.

You've got to bare in mind, that they aren't doing the politically easy things here. It would be easy to close the schools. Based on people I've spoken to, its going to happen soon - but I suspect they want this to happen after the over 70s and the vulnerables are into self-isolationg, and not shouldering childcare responsibilities. None of this is easy, we can't magic this virus away.

I think there's a lot behavioural science going on with the strategy here as well. A lot of the UK public now seem to realise this is serious and have automatically changed behaviour without government mandating it. Long term, that's a big win, people are bought in (seemingly) of their own volition and there is huge value in that.

The schools issue is very tricky as a lot of NHS staff will not be able to work if their children need to stay home. I can see them going to a softly, softly approach - parents working from home will be able to keep kids out of school with no consequence and they will probably extend all the school holidays a bit as well.

I can't believe this government wants to kill off the elderly out of choice, it forms a good section of their voter base, if nothing else.

I think overall it's good long term strategy, though very risky, which is never going to be perfect, but seems to have a lot of science and rationale behind it, even if not obvious at first.

>A lot of the UK public now seem to realise this is serious and have automatically changed behaviour without government mandating it.

I had no choice but go out and to do my weekly food shopping yesterday. This was definitely not what I experienced at all. Families crowding out in the supermarket with small children and grandparents abound. People coughing openly, not maintaining distance and so on.

People still have no sense of urgency to change their behaviour, and this is the critical time that we need to mobilise. Any success would be down to pure luck rather than their strategy.

To be fair, if all the "take it seriously people" stay at home as much as possible, you'll be far less likely to encounter them and 90% of the people you'll encounter in public are the people who don't change their behaviour.

If that's the case, I would also encounter a lot less people than usual in my weekly food shoping. That didn't happen. There's no need to bring all out your extended family out to Waitrose, Tesco or Costco. People are still doing it, nothing's changed.

I'm not sure how people will react by say, week 4 of isolation. I've been cooped up indoors for a week and it's already taking a toll on my well being.

You will invariably have people breaking quarantine after a few weeks, especially if there is a sense of the threat subsiding.

With entertainment venues being shuttered as “non-essential” at the same time as people are worried about both their health and livelihoods, there’s a very real risk of widespread morale problems as this crisis evolves.

The plan to protect the vulnerable is four months of quarantine: https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-14/elderly-to-be-quarantine...

It’s almost Swiftian in its satire... oh wait, they’re serious. Strange that it may be quite a few of their own voters who die. I know Boris idolizes the mayor from Jaws who says the beach is safe to keep businesses open so maybe they are that dumb or maybe they’ll be really lucky. Risking an extra 2% of 50M dead (or even 20% of that) is a big gamble. How many allies died in Normandy? 200k? Hope it’s worth it.

I’m guessing that when things start getting Wuhan level crazy people will isolate anyway and they’ll get the worst of all results.

What better plan for vulnerable people is there than isolating them? You also seem to be under the impression that the plan is for no lockdown. The government has already said that there will be increasingly tight measures over the next few weeks.

I despise the current government, and have no idea if this plan is better than alternatives, but please if you want to criticise it, do so for what it actually is, not a straw man of your own construction.

I truly wish you good luck. Planning for the virus to expand (rapidly) through the younger less vulnerable population to protect businesses and provide herd immunity is what was described. I understand they're trying to walk that back now... good idea! https://politicshome.com/news/uk/health-and-care/illnesstrea...

The actual plan and how to isolate the almost 20% of the population at high risk is not outlined here or anywhere I've seen. If you know (or anyone in the government knows) what it is, please provide a description or link. I've only seen hope... and undefined "measures".

I watched the press conference where they launched the plan. That is emphatically not what was described.

A lot of people seem confused... granted it's the Guardian, but how did so many hear the same thing incorrectly?

The idea that a "second wave" can even be avoided or that infection prevents reinfection is not known. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidem...

Yes, now that there is a released plan... worst messaging ever.

The U.K.’s Coronavirus ‘Herd Immunity’ Debacle. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavir...

4400 confirmed dead on D-Day (Allied)

The capture of Normandy didn't take a single day - it took over a month with ~120,000 Allied casualties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy

What could the government realistically do to protect the vulnerable? It's ultimately up to the people to be disciplined and protect vulnerable people. That will only be done by educating the people, which has been done.