[majc2]

> 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.

[christoph]

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.

[starfallg]

>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.

[Qwertious]

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.

[starfallg]

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.

[puranjay]

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.

[kd5bjo]

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.