I don't think it'll happen.
I know the UK is trying to work out how to have some kind of "immunity" card but I don't see how that can work without reliable tests or a UK Photo ID card.
I think there is little doubt that there will be at least a second wave before there is a vaccine. But how severe that will be depends on how many of the particularly viable have died, or survived for that matter, and what proportion of the population the virus has already been through.
I think eventually people unwilling to be restricted and companies desperate for money will force their hand.
If the true infection vs fatality rate is anything less than 1%, and I rather suspect that it will be significantly lower than that, then I think pretty much everything will start up again - though obviously some things have a much longer lead time than others.
If you can't keep people worried about the likelihood and consequences of letting the virus, then in the real world you cannot restrict them.
I suspect that they not only expected a leaky lockdown, they wanted one. A 100% lock down would only have kicked the can down the corridor, and unless that lockdown could be held until there was a vaccine available (not a chance) then it was a hopeless and pointless path.
A leaky lockdown however allowed the virus to spread without [quite] overwhelming the health service. A delicate balance and we've yet to see for sure that they've achieved the right balance - but I think they're close.
In their calculations they allowed for up to 50% of people flouting the guidelines and I sense that it hasn't been that bad.
Stopping a forest fire happening not only achieves nothing it makes the forest fire next year much stronger. It's just a matter of allowing it to burn enough to remove the readily available fuel yet without overwhelming the Fire Service and thus allowing far too much of the forest to burn..
|
