We all know it isn't the answer. The question is whether it offers any help at all. The evidence is unclear but the US study suggests it can reduce the recovery time. To put it bluntly: Remdesivir isn't going to stop people croaking in large numbers.

 I am no expert in Human virus transmission but i have experience of eradicating diseases in cattle. If you have a naive herd and do not have or do not use a vaccine you are at permanent risk of a virus sweeping through your herd. Whereas the Herd with some inbred immunity or continually vaccinating will not suffer in anything like such a serious way.

 A country like New Zealand is ideally placed to adopt the former tactic but until a vaccine is available has to remain cut off . How many have immunity here is unknown as yet especially as it can spread in such a mild form but is it the Lockdown or increasing herd  immunity that is slowing it down.?

 Yes and they will have to do that till a vaccine is available but you might find countries which have had a serious outbreak first time round are less affected by a second wave. 

All fair points and we don't know as you say. All we have is various randomised testing studies in other countries which show tiny percentages of their population to be infected. We'll probably find out here too eventually, either through random testing or with accurate antibody testing.

Based on the studies from other countries and the relatively low number of hospital admissions in the UK, my guesstimate is that at least 95% of the population here hasn't had the virus. 

It's also possible that many of our new infections come from hospitals and care homes due to the lack of PPE. There should be more information on this.

Based on the studies from other countries and the relatively low number of hospital admissions in the UK, my guesstimate is that at least 95% of the population here hasn't had the virus. 

It's also possible that many of our new infections come from hospitals and care homes due to the lack of PPE. There should be more information

 But if the virus can be so mild in young people and children  thousands, maybe millions have had it and would not show on Hospital admissions

The surge in Care Homes is not good but they are such a vulnerable target for this virus and an early lack of good quality PPE would have helped.

There's no way IMO we can try for herd immunity by letting more and more people get the virus. That seems to be what was being done in this country back in early-mid March and look at how many lives have now been lost here as a result.

For me, there will have to be a lockdown of some degree in place until such a time as a safe and working vaccine comes along, even if it takes until next year. Any other way out of this is far too risky, in my view.

If those with underlying health conditions are excluded is there a correlation between alveoli surface area and severity of symptoms? In my Trump moment it almost seems as though those with bigger lung capacity (excluding the already ill) get hit much harder by this more often than not. Almost as though there is a "critical mass" of viral load which has to be reached in the body. 

As is the continued dogged refusal of certain people to look behind the superficial headline and understand to what extent those measures are applicable to other countries.

But I'm not sure how repetitive posting about how we failed to do certain things achieved very much. I think everyone has got the message - but it would seem that you Hvent got the message that pretty much everyone acknowledges that we should have done better.

This really isn't an issue where binary thought gets anywhere: it really isn't a case of 'right' v 'wrong'; that's incredibly simplistic.

There have been some studies in other countries (Austria, Iceland and even the flusurvey study here) which found very low percentages being infected in early April (<1% in Austria and Iceland and 2% in the UK). There are bigger studies now starting in Germany and the UK which should help too, but only very reliable antibody testing can show the true numbers.

Ignore my guessstimate though, if we believe what many of our experts say (that up to 10% of the UK population had it), then I don't think this will help us with a possible second wave. In addition, significant second waves are not certain at all all in countries which have contained their epidemics, they will probably use border controls and test-trace-isolate in order to keep their numbers very low.

I wouldn't put much weight on any modelling as we don't know its accuracy , real life experience from other countries is much more important.

That seems al last counterintuitive because I'd have assumed that if the virus reduces the ability of the lungs to move oxygen into the body then the more lung capacity you have the better?  The fact that smokers seem to be hit harder suggests that it is impairment of lung function that's the issue, doesn't it?

Herd immunity is an inevitable side effect of letting the virus spread - hence the lack of a complete lockdown. It's clear to me that the main aim is to ensure we have a level of cases which doesn't overwhelm the NHS, even if R goes above 1 for a bit (hence the Nightingales and the changed point 5 yesterday).

There will indeed have to be measures until the vaccine arrives, but they'll be aimed at stopping the NHS being overwhelmed rather than anything else IMO.

At least the number of immune people is rising steadily, as Tesco says "every little helps".

Dr Philip Lee was on LBC this morng:

Former Tory MP and doctor: Utter nonsense to call UK's coronavirus response a "success"

A doctor and former Conservative MP has told LBC that the UK's governance has failed spectacularly over the response to Covid-19.

Dr Phillip Lee is uniquely qualified to discuss the government response, having served as a Conservative Minister as well as a doctor.

He said: "The scale of unnecessary loss of life in this country is unacceptable. What angers me most is we could have done so much better.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/tory-mp-doctor-nonsense-uk-coronavirus-success/

Why couldn't we do what SK has done? Why couldn't we do what NZ has done? Or Portugal? Or Greece?

I'm afraid it is a case of right or wrong. We got it badly wrong; those countries got it right.

I notice from the Spectator that Johnson has indeed now decided to go the SK route. Maybe you should call him to tell him we can't do what they've done because reasons.

Simplistically, doesn't 10% having immunity reduce R0 by 10%?

If, say, half the population had immunity then an R0 of 2 would become 1, because of the two potential targets for infection one would be removed.

So, a reduction of 10% may not mean that much but if you have other precautions in place to keep R0 down (as now), it does give you that bit more 'wriggle room' to keep it below 1, eg 0.9 is much better than 1; 1.0 is better than 1.1 etc

Great, at least we'll have a couple more things to play with during lockdown 

The point here is that eventually lockdowns will have to be eased, otherwise you trash the economy. If you have the virus in circulation any easing will cause R to shoot up... and if you're not careful you will end up with a second wave. Remember those charts the gov't was using back in March? They showed very clearly that when lockdowns ended a second wave was inevitable.

Countries like NZ have largely avoided the first wave, but that just means they now have to be vigilant every hour of every day... even a couple of asymptomaic people coming in to a country which has no immunes will set off a chain reaction.

While it's likely that the level of immunity here will be low, even 5% immunity would slow the spread somewhat which will flatten a second curve.

At least things are moving on with antibody testing now, I note the Abbott Labs one mentioned yesterday is lab-based which should give far greater accuracy than the "at home" testing kits we've seen mentioned before.

Yes, we could have done but our decision makers made some poor choices. Were they badly advised or did they ignore some of the guidance/science?

I just don't think some of those measures could have been put in place here, or not as effectively. The circumstances of the the U.K. are very different to most of the others you cite, aren't they?  I am not making excuses, by the way, but trying to analyse rather than just condemn without qualification.

Our aim shouldn't be to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, our aim should be to prevents as many deaths as possible without having a continuous or repetitive lockdowns. This is possible and more and more countries will continue to prove it. 

In theory, we could keep avoiding overwhelming the NHS but have thousands of hundreds of deaths until the potential vaccine arrive. Perhaps you are prepared to accept this as inevitable, but it really isn't.

Yes, of course.

And what is wrong with that? They will be in a state of increased surveillance until the global pandemic subsides. They will have lifted their lockdown and keep their number of new infections to a low and manageable level (as South Korea has been doing). They will keep buying time without destroying their economy.

We can do it too at the end of our lockdown, provided the number of new infections drops and we follow a similar aggressive strategy.

I made the point during a converasation I had with a friend of mine on Facebook earlier this month that the countries that appear to have been the most successful at largely containing the spread of Covid-19 were those that took decisive action at the outset of it. That was where the UK went wrong for me, and badly wrong.

IMO, there was a real lack of leadership from the government back in the period from late January to early-mid March, the most crucial period. I cannot understand why the PM thought it OK to be absent from no fewer than five meetings of the Cobra emergency committee in late January and February. When he finally did attend one at the start of March, at the time the government finally raised the alarm about the likely effect of the virus here, they practically admitted that it was too late to prevent the worst effects of the virus in the UK.

Drove to Whitstable yesterday to leave groceries outside my mother-in-law’s front door. Even though I’ve seen increasing traffic levels, I was surprised by the number of cars on the A299. The volume was about 80% of normal, I reckon.

Most of the drivers and passengers I observed were older - many of them clearly over 70. And that is my experience: the older people are the ones who are more likely to not care about the lockdown or the risk.

If, as Xioni says, the aim is to keep deaths to a minimum, I do wonder why all these elderly people round here appear not to give a stuff. Some of our neighbours think the whole thing is a big joke. It makes me angry, I have to say. Why am I and many others sacrificing business and livelihood for people who don’t appear to give a damn? For them, it is business as usual.

Indeed. Much easier to keep the boat moored than pull it back to shore.

Except we have no evidence as regards what level of immunity is granted by having had it, whether this is the same whatever the severity of an individual's initial infection, or whether any immunity will last months rather than years.

Wish that it were I could dictate government policy! I can't, of course, any more than you can.

Therefore it doesn't matter what I want (please note I've not said what I want either, no casting aspersions please), what matters is what the government wants - and that is a tradeoff between the economy and excess deaths. Again, everything they've done so far suggests they're comfortable with a certain level of deaths and that the strategy is to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. It's crystal clear if you look at the way, for example, they changed point 5 yesterday.

It's also the case that thousands of more deaths are inevitable, whether you or I like it or find it acceptable or not.

As to Nick's point, if you've been keeping up with the news the past few days you'll find that there's solid evidence you can't get it again any time soon, both from South Korea and primate testing. I'm happy to go along with that, as it fits in with everything we know about the other coronaviruses that infect humans. You do get immunity and it lasts for months, if not a couple of years.

There's zero evidence out there so far that this is any different, thankfully.