Has the COVID Crisis changed our attitude to risk?

[AdamWW]

Some interesting comments here.

The UK has gone further than I like in risk avoidance, e.g. companies not letting employees plug in a brand new phone charger until it's been PATT tested because they need to have paperwork showing they have done all they can to shield them from the risk of using it. (But of course if they take that - tiny - risk at home that's fine).

But I don't see the Covid response on the whole as being part of that though. I think the UK approach to risk is at the extreme end compared to most countries, yet we don't seem to be an outlier in terms of how we've handled lockdown. I don't think it came easily to this government at all.

What I think makes the risk aspects a bit different to normal is that at the moment the chances of someone becoming infected and developing symptoms* are fairly small. The social distancing requirements are intended to keep transmission down so that infections don't start increasing again, rather than (just) being about risk to the individual.

This means somewhat different criteria make sense. What would look like inconsistency if considering just individual risk makes more sense when you just want to keep R<1 and can afford to have some risky areas so long as there aren't too many (for example you might be able to have schools open and public transport back to normal, but not both).

And it's easy to point to the relatively low number of deaths compared to other causes and ask what all the fuss is about. But there is a very good chance that if we use that as an argument to stop social distancing and other precautions, that quite rapidly that number goes up again.

Some people seem to think the reduction in deaths (which is almost certainly due to the lockdown) show that it wasn't needed and I can't follow that logic. I also don't follow the argument that the lockdown has caused collatoral damage because of the impact on the NHS, as if without the lockdown the NHS would have been available for non-Covid related issues in a way it isn't now.

England seems to have abandonded the step-by-step approach to releasing lockdown and maybe in hindsight it will turn out to be the right one. I hope so.

If local lockdowns are going to be the plan from now on, it would be nice to see how the government intends to make them work and handle the economic aspects. I'm sure they have thought it all through.

* Modelling seems to suggest that under 20% of people becoming infected actually get a positive test - the majority of the rest presumably don't have symptoms that would qualify them for the test and likely don't get particularly ill at all.

 

[AdamWW]

The best example of iffy risk assessment is the fear of flying, which considers only the no doubt highly unpleasant nature of the experience of dying in a plane crash and doesn't consider the fact that even if you're a commercial pilot you've got more chance of winning the Lottery jackpot than that happening.

The drive to the airport is much, much more likely to wipe you out.

I think there is a major problem in that people think newsworthy = important.

Whereas of course things tend to make the news because of their rarity.

So plane crashes make the news and are therefore to be feared. (Not helped by the deaths often coming in large lumps rather than scattered through the year).

I knew someone who stopped travelling by train after - I think - the Southall crash because he saw it too dangerous. (Though as he didn't drive, he travelled by coach, and I'm not sure how coach and train fatality risks compare - both will be very small)

 

[MikeWM]

Some people seem to think the reduction in deaths (which is almost certainly due to the lockdown) show that it wasn't needed and I can't follow that logic.

In places that didn't lockdown they've seen a very similar pattern. Sweden, for example.

I also don't follow the argument that the lockdown has caused collatoral damage because of the impact on the NHS, as if without the lockdown the NHS would have been available for non-Covid related issues in a way it isn't now.

Again, that wasn't the case in Sweden. The demand (here, and in Sweden) was orders of magnitude less than the modelers (Ferguson in particular) predicted. And if it had been worse than it turned out to be, that's why we built the Nightingale hospitals as a fall-back position.

 

[DB]

And it's easy to point to the relatively low number of deaths compared to other causes and ask what all the fuss is about. But there is a very good chance that if we use that as an argument to stop social distancing and other precautions, that quite rapidly that number goes up again.

But how do you see this working in the coming months (and possibly years)? If this approach continues until a vaccine appears then the economy will have tanked, and some industries (hospitality and tourism particularly) will have been almost wiped out as they won't be able to operate profitably. There's not even any certaintly that a successful vaccine will ever be developed, and even if it is then wiping out the virus could well take many years.

There is too much of a tendancy at the moment to see this virus as the only risk to be considered - but it's not, and the risk from that needs to be balanced against other risks. It's now reached the stage where continuing with the current measures is likely to do more long-term harm than accepting that we have to live with this virus for the long term.

 

[AdamWW]

In places that didn't lockdown they've seen a very similar pattern. Sweden, for example.

Again, that wasn't the case in Sweden. The demand (here, and in Sweden) was orders of magnitude less than the modelers (Ferguson in particular) predicted. And if it had been worse than it turned out to be, that's why we built the Nightingale hospitals as a fall-back position.

Sweden didn't have a UK-style "lockdown" but they still brought in restrictions. Their death rate is much higher than their neighbours, which seems a better comparison than with the UK. Yes they have also seen deaths peak and fall, but it seems very likely we'd have seen a lot more deaths if we'd gone down their route.

I'm curious about the idea that the demand was hugely less than modelled. Where does that come from? And isn't that a statement that lockdown was more effective than expected, rather than the model being wrong in what would happen without one? I know the way the model handled lockdown was really rather crude and not likely to be correct - unlike transmission without a lockdown, they don't have any empirical data to go on.

Could we have coped with that with the Nightingale hospitals? Maybe, but what I've read about them (e.g. lack of staffing) doesn't make me confident.

Of course it's quite possible that there won't be a vaccine or decent treatment in time and in the end everyone is going to have to take their chance at it, in which case Sweden are just further ahead than we are and - yes - their economy will have done better. If only we knew.

As for modelling, it's interesting how a lot of people are blaming it (Imperial in particular) for an unnecessary lockdown. But it's clear from the SAGE documents that initially modelling was being used to justify not attempting a lockdown, on the grounds that some day you have to let people out and when you do it will be just as bad as if you hadn't done it. (The models didn't have tracking and tracing, for whatever good it is, built in, and the implicit assumption was that we won't learn anything about how to treat it. They also seemed to model a world without any public transport, but that's another side to it).

It's also clear from the SAGE documents that they weren't relying on modelling from a single group.

 

[DB]

Their death rate is much higher than their neighbours, which seems a better comparison than with the UK.

The death rate in Sweden is still lower than the UK.

And they are not now faced with the problem which the UK (and Norway, Denmark, etc) have, of where to go now. Neither have they seen a massive drop in their economy, as has happened in the UK.

 

[AdamWW]

But how do you see this working in the coming months (and possibly years)? If this approach continues until a vaccine appears then the economy will have tanked, and some industries (hospitality and tourism particularly) will have been almost wiped out as they won't be able to operate profitably. There's not even any certaintly that a successful vaccine will ever be developed, and even if it is then wiping out the virus could well take many years.

All true. But I'm not criticising people saying that. I'm criticising people saying things like "Oh it's only killed as many people as a bad flu year - what's the fuss about?", rather than "Yes we might have to accept a high risk of a lot more deaths and a health system with little ability to deal with anything else because the alternatives are worse".

Of course an economy could exist in which we carry on as we are now - we're not in much danger of running out of food or water, or places to live. But I doubt many of us would enjoy it.

There is too much of a tendancy at the moment to see this virus as the only risk to be considered - but it's not, and the risk from that needs to be balanced against other risks. It's now reached the stage where continuing with the current measures is likely to do more long-term harm than accepting that we have to live with this virus for the long term.

No it's not the only risk, and it's pretty clear that the government are balancing it - the question is where that balance should be, and whatever they do won't be to everyone's taste. England is taking a different aproach to Wales and Scotland, for example.

 

[AdamWW]

The death rate in Sweden is still lower than the UK.

And they are not now faced with the problem which the UK (and Norway, Denmark, etc) have, of where to go now. Neither have they seen a massive drop in their economy, as has happened in the UK.

Yes the death rate in Sweden is lower than in the UK. I'm not sure what that proves though other than different countries have different death rates for many reasons.

And the Swedish economy certainly hasn't been unscathed.

 

[DB]

No it's not the only risk, and it's pretty clear that the government are balancing it - the question is where that balance should be, and whatever they do won't be to everyone's taste. England is taking a different aproach to Wales and Scotland, for example.

But to what end? It's highly unlikely to go away, and realistically we cannot carry on like this indefinitely, or even for a fairly short time - it will cause mass bankruptcies and unemployment, and kids leaving school and university would have virtually no chance of getting a job. It will effectively blight the country for years to come, and this can never be a viable option.

 

[DB]

Yes the death rate in Sweden is lower than in the UK. I'm not sure what that proves though other than different countries have different death rates for many reasons.

And the Swedish economy certainly hasn't been unscathed.

It proves that the rhetoric about having to impose such draconian measures simply isn't true - with a far more light-touch approach Sweden has done better, and would probably have done better still if they had been stricter on protecting care homes and the like - i.e. those at particular risk. They seem to have aknowledged that, unlike the government here who never admit to getting anything wrong.

While their economy hasn't been unscathed (and with the reduction in international business and tourism, no economy could be unscathed at the moment), it's fared massively better than this country.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm curious about the idea that the demand was hugely less than modelled. Where does that come from?

This paper, from the University of Uppsala

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

took Ferguson's approach and applied it to Sweden. Modelled deaths are around 80,000. Peak ICU load 20-30k. Peak hospital load 120-150k.

Healthcare needs are expected to substantially exceed pre-pandemic capacity even if the most aggressive interventions considered were implemented in the coming weeks. In particular the need for intensive care unit beds will be at least 40-fold greater than the pre-pandemic capacity if the current strategy is maintained, and at least 10-fold greater if strategies approximating the most stringent in Europe are introduced by 10 April.

Our model predicts that,using median infection-fatality-rate estimates,at least 96,000 deaths would occur by 1 July without mitigation. Current policies reduce this number by approximately 15%, while even more aggressive social distancing measures, such as adding household isolation or mandated social distancing can reduce this number by more than 50%.

(emphasis mine)

As we all know, absolutely none of those things happened in Sweden despite no change in policy. Conveniently it is now 1 July, so we can say that for sure

As for modelling, it's interesting how a lot of people are blaming it (Imperial in particular) for an unnecessary lockdown. But it's clear from the SAGE documents that initially modelling was being used to justify not attempting a lockdown, on the grounds that some day you have to let people out and when you do it will be just as bad as if you hadn't done it. (The models didn't have tracking and tracing, for whatever good it is, built in, and the implicit assumption was that we won't learn anything about how to treat it. They also seemed to model a world without any public transport, but that's another side to it).

It's also clear from the SAGE documents that they weren't relying on modelling from a single group.

Yes, that is fair. It appeared the Imperial model spooked the politicians, but in the end the decision was theirs.

 

[geoffk]

I think we've always had a very poor understanding of risk as a society, certainly as long as I've been alive, though it does appear to be getting worse and worse. The only answer would appear to be better education on the subject.

The one thing that I always thought protected us from an insanely-over-the-top *centralised* response to risk was our free-market capitalist system - one of the benefits of it - as any attempt to eradicate risk would be so damaging to the economy and fabric of society that no-one would ever attempt it (or be *allowed* to attempt it). But the last few months have shown that even that no longer applies.

Yet on the railway, a subject which all of us on this forum know about, risk has been gradually legislated away yet we all accept risks many times as great on the roads every day.

 

[yorkie]

And the Swedish economy certainly hasn't been unscathed.

It's done far better than ours has!

This paper

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

took Ferguson's approach and applied it to Sweden. Modelled deaths are around 80,000. Peak ICU load 20-30k. Peak hospital load 120-150k....

Indeed; this must be at least the 3rd time this has cropped up on the forum!

 

[MikeWM]

Indeed; this must be at least the 3rd time this has cropped up on the forum!

It's the 1st July now though, so we can say with 100% certainty how rubbish the predictions for where we would be by today really are

Maybe we need a separate thread for Sweden? It does keep cropping up...

 

[MikeWM]

Yet on the railway, a subject which all of us on this forum know about, risk has been gradually legislated away yet we all accept risks many times as great on the roads every day.

It is a microcosm of society as a whole, though, and self-contained enough that the risk mitigation only really presents itself in higher ticket prices and/or higher cost to the Treasury. In itself it doesn't affect the whole of society much. I'd also say, again, this is partly about individuals being in control, however illusory.

Even here though, attitudes to acceptable risk differ fairly widely. Look at the recent discussions about level-crossings on the Wisbech route, or - without wanting to re-open a can of worms - the different opinions on who should bear responsibility for what happened at Elsenham in 2005.

 

[LAX54]

The perceived impact of catching covid is wrongly understood by many people (If I catch this I'll die seems to be what a lot of them believe).

I honestly believe that if we started announcing death rates for flu then people would demand measures like this, if we started announcing car crash deaths people would want measures to be implemented. We need to start being more rational and logical with our perception of the true risk and the measures required to mitigate it (nowhere near as restrictive as they currently are)

It's the word PANDEMIC that seems to scare everyone, yet a few I have asked what does it it mean, and they have told me, they understood it be a life threatening illness that if you are over 50 you WILL die !

Dictionary.com says....

PANDEMIC: First recorded in 1660–70; from Late Latin pandēm(us), from Greek pándēmos “common, public” (pan- pan- + dêm(os) “the people” + -os adjective suffix) + -ic Pandemic is also used as a noun, meaning “a pandemic disease.” The WHO more specifically defines a pandemic as “a worldwide spread of a new disease.”

So I assume when we get this again next year, or the year after, it will be a bog standard 'Epidemic' and no one will take any notice !

There are 8 BILLION people in the World of which 510,000 have died Worldwide. (10 million have had it Worldwide)

 

[Tetchytyke]

The demand was orders of magnitude less than the modelers (Ferguson in particular) predicted.

Except it wasn't. The headline figure was 510,00 deaths if the government did nothing at all, about 260,000 if they stuck with their "herd immunity" plan, and between 30,000 and 40,000 with a full lockdown.

Covid has killed 44,000 people in the UK, with pretty much a full lockdown, so actually the modelling was pretty much bang on the money.

realistically we cannot carry on like this indefinitely, or even for a fairly short time - it will cause mass bankruptcies and unemployment

You, like many others, seem to be labouring under the misconception that lockdown is why there's an economic impact and that, without lockdown, there would be no economic impact. That is completely false.

Back in March I too thought lockdown was unnecessary. I still think elements of it were. But, with hindsight, I'd say it was necessary.

It's done far better than ours has!

Has it? The IMF are projecting an 8% drop in GDP this year for Sweden, broadly in line with other similar economies.

 

[Yew]

Whilst I think it's reasonable to consider a base impact of the epidemic, due to it's uncertainty reducing market confidence,and the mean marginal propensity to consume. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that mandated closing of businesses, which otherwise may have stayed open has an additional effect in slowing economic growth.

For some circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider these additional costs as part of the costs of the epidemic, however this is clearly unsuitable when we're discussing the various different courses of action we could possibly take.

 

[yorkie]

Covid has killed 44,000 people in the UK, with pretty much a full lockdown, so actually the modelling was pretty much bang on the money.

The modelling was not correct for a partial lockdown though. Also it remains to be seen whether it remains correct going forward; was it based on us finding a vaccine soon or based on us having severe restrictions indefinitely? Clearly one of those is going to happen otherwise it won't be correct ultimately.

You, like many others, seem to be labouring under the misconception that lockdown is why there's an economic impact and that, without lockdown, there would be no economic impact. That is completely false.

Surely no-one is claiming that. Sweden has done much better economically than we have, and has had fewer deaths and is in a far better position in every measurable way.

 

[DB]

You, like many others, seem to be labouring under the misconception that lockdown is why there's an economic impact and that, without lockdown, there would be no economic impact. That is completely false.

To be honest, I'm not especially keen on being told in such a patronising way exactly what I think.

Nowhere have I expressed the opinion that there would be 'no economic impact'. However, I do believe that the economic impact without the restrictions (or with lighter restrictions) would be a fraction of what it is.

The original justification for the restrictions was claimed to be to allow the NHS to prepare and prevent it from getting overwhelmed. It could be argued that this was justified, but only for a couple of months. Moving the goalposts and turning it into a vague and unrealistic 'we must eradicate the virus', thereby dragging restrictions on indefinitely, is not helping. Plus a lot of the restrictions now are pointless tokenism - e.g. the evidence for any benefit from non-medical masks is very weak, the 2m distancing was originally 'for at least 15 minutes' but has evolved into 'for at least 1 second'. Then there's the hospitality industry - if pubs comply with the government guidelines, going to them will be a pretty joyless procedure (have to stay in family/house groups, served at table, keeping a register, etc), and I suspect that if the pubs stick to the guidelines they won't get many customers - particulary those which are 'drinking' pubs rather than 'food' pubs. A lot of these rules and guidelines are not actually going to appreciably alter any risk, they are just to be seen to be doing something - which in turn is because the governement with their previous messaging have succeeded in terrifying a proportion of the population by over-stating the risk (which for most people, is low) - but the government can't now easily back out from the situation they have created without those terrified people claiming that they are being negligent.

 

[al78]

Yet on the railway, a subject which all of us on this forum know about, risk has been gradually legislated away yet we all accept risks many times as great on the roads every day.

The risk of death or serious injury on any one journey on the road is very very small despite it being many times larger than a journey by rail. Many times a tiny number is still a tiny number. There is also the feeling of control when driving or walking, which is put in the hands of other people when using public transport.

One difference between rail and road journeys is in all but the very worst car crashes, only a few people will be seriously injured or killed, because only two or three vehicles will be involved, whereas if a train crashes at moderate speed or higher, there could be a couple of hundred on board that will get thrown around and badly injured. It is like comparing nuclear power to fossil fuel power, the former is far safer if you just look at mean annual death rates, but if a major nuclear accident happens, a lot of people are badly affected by it potentially for decades.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The original justification for the restrictions was claimed to be to allow the NHS to prepare and prevent it from getting overwhelmed. It could be argued that this was justified, but only for a couple of months. Moving the goalposts and turning it into a vague and unrealistic 'we must eradicate the virus', thereby dragging restrictions on indefinitely, is not helping.

I don't think the aim is eradication but, as we've seen in Leicester and will very soon see in Bradford, Covid remains a very real risk.

Some of the rules are gimmicky, I quite agree, including masks on transport.

The rules for pubs and hospitality make more sense- there still needs to be social distancing, like it or not, and that means you can't just stand at the bar and pubs have to control how many are in the place. The biggest superspreader events across the world have all been in the hospitality sector.

FWIW I think England is trying to come out of lockdown too quickly and before it is ready. The consequence of that is that the restrictions will last longer, and cause more economic damage, than if England just waited another 4 weeks before starting to emerge.

I'm not sure what you would propose instead, though? The restrictions now aren't particularly heavy duty, you couldn't weaken them much more.

To be honest, I'm not especially keen on being told in such a patronising way exactly what I think.

Apologies for appearing patronising, it wasn't my intention.

Sweden has done much better economically than we have, and has had fewer deaths and is in a far better position in every measurable way.

Sweden isn't doing well economically, though, as I've said the IMF are predicting an 8% drop in GDP there. And with the death rates, you need to look beyond the headline, because much of Sweden is so rural. If you look at metropolitan Sweden- Stockholm, Malmo, etc- the evidence is less convincing. Stockholm's had 80 deaths per 100,000 people. The UK's had about 50.

Sources: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-sweden-will-covid-19-economics-be-different

The UK is set for an 11% drop in GDP but don't forget the dreaded B-word is distorting things. Johnson will want Covid to take the blame for Brexit's economic destruction, but don't indulge him.

If you'd asked me in March and April I'd have been well up for the Swedish model, I did think lockdown was unnecessary. I'll be honest, I think hindsight has changed my mind.

 

[yorkie]

So @Tetchytyke given it cannot be eradicated, we are effectively relying on a vaccine becoming available shortly because what you are advocating does not otherwise include an exit strategy nor is it a viable long term solution, would you agree?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So @Tetchytyke given it cannot be eradicated, we are effectively relying on a vaccine becoming available shortly because what you are advocating does not otherwise include an exit strategy nor is it a viable long term solution, would you agree?

The problem with this all is that other than a vaccine or effective treatment there isn't an exit strategy that doesn't involve lots of people dying and health services being overwhelmed.

It is clear to me that we are following this:

Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance

What the Next 18 Months Can Look Like, if Leaders Buy Us Time

medium.com

...and I'm not sure of any other sensible way out, really.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So @Tetchytyke given it cannot be eradicated, we are effectively relying on a vaccine becoming available shortly because what you are advocating does not otherwise include an exit strategy nor is it a viable long term solution, would you agree?

It can be eradicated- it is here, and it was in New Zealand. But that involves a really tough lockdown to really stop transmission dead. Never mind £60 fines, the Isle of Man actually jailed people who broke lockdown laws. Harsh, yes, but effective.

Viruses can't live long outside a host body, 48 hours tops, so if the virus can't transmit it can't survive.

Countries that went that way are coming out of lockdown quicker and with less long-term damage.

Countries that didn't are finding that things are rumbling along, causing disruption, with less of an end in sight.

Countries that are rushing coming out of lockdown before they're ready are also finding that it's going to keep rumbling along causing hassle, a bit like if you take an annoying cast off too soon. My opinion is England is rushing it and that's why you've seen Leicester, and I hear Bradford isn't far behind.

I don't think it needs to be eradicated or vaccinated before lockdown ends, but if you rush things whilst there's still a high level of the virus in the community, meaning you have to bounce back into lockdown, then you're just prolonging the misery.

I'm not sure of any other sensible way out, really.

Indeed. Whack-a-mole is the exit strategy, and one that makes sense. But you have to make sure there aren't more moles than you can whack before you even start. That's where England is falling down, rushing out of lockdown for political reasons (to cover up for a corrupt housing minister and a psychopathic adviser, mainly).

 

[DB]

So @Tetchytyke given it cannot be eradicated, we are effectively relying on a vaccine becoming available shortly because what you are advocating does not otherwise include an exit strategy nor is it a viable long term solution, would you agree?

And this is exactly the problem, isn't it? There's no guarantee that a vaccine will ever be successfully developed (or if it is, when), and the current restrictions simply cannot carry on indefinitely without causing more problems than the virus would - and apart from anything else, people are increasingly ignoring them and that's only going to happen more. China might be able to impose draconian measures to try to stop this, but it won't work in the west as people simply won't stand for it.

I actually can't see any workable alternative to the herd immunity strategy, coupled with strong measures to protect care homes and the like so far as is possible, and financial support for younger people who have medical conditions which put them at particular risk, if they wish to stay at home (but that should of course be their choice).

 

[DB]

It can be eradicated- it is here, and it was in New Zealand. But that involves a really tough lockdown to really stop transmission dead. Never mind £60 fines, the Isle of Man actually jailed people who broke lockdown laws. Harsh, yes, but effective.

Viruses can't live long outside a host body, 48 hours tops, so if the virus can't transmit it can't survive.

But that applies to many viruses, and yet Smallpox is the only formerly-widespread human virus ever to be eradicated. The chances of eradicating it in all countries at once, without a vaccine, is vanishingly small given how widespread it has become. New Zealand is not typical, in that as a wealthy and fairly remote island nation, with few large cities (only one with a population of over a million), it is better placed than most countries in the current circumstances. However, it won't be able to keep its borders closed / impose two-week quaranties indefinitely.

 

[Domh245]

Sweden isn't doing well economically, though, as I've said the IMF are predicting an 8% drop in GDP there.

Sweden's GDP grew 0.1% in the first quarter of 2020

National Accounts, quarterly and annual estimates

The National Accounts (NA) is an accounting system that summarises and describes the country's economic activities and development. The National Accounts include calculations of the Gross domestic product (GDP), real sector accounts and financial accou...

www.scb.se

 

[Bantamzen]

It can be eradicated- it is here, and it was in New Zealand. But that involves a really tough lockdown to really stop transmission dead. Never mind £60 fines, the Isle of Man actually jailed people who broke lockdown laws. Harsh, yes, but effective.

No, it isn't present on your island, it is not eradicated. In order to guarantee it never returns, you will have to stay completely isolated, i.e. no movement on or off it, until the virus in declared extinct globally. For reference only 2 viruses have been completely wiped out of the eco-system, Smallpox & Rinderpest. So you may be stuck for some time.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sweden's GDP grew 0.1% in the first quarter of 2020

You can't judge on Q1, because only about 3 weeks of it was "COVID time". It's Q2 that will be telling.

No, it isn't present on your island, it is not eradicated. In order to guarantee it never returns, you will have to stay completely isolated, i.e. no movement on or off it, until the virus in declared extinct globally. For reference only 2 viruses have been completely wiped out of the eco-system, Smallpox & Rinderpest. So you may be stuck for some time.....

That of course is more of an issue for the IoM than it is for New Zealand. The UK, for instance (more specifically mainland GB), which is probably vaguely comparable to NZ being a smallish but reasonably sized island nation, could survive without international travel of people for a considerable time - if there was a war in Europe we'd have to - and goods can still be moved without people. The IoM is a bit small for that. I think in NZ they have got that right - I'd rather be able to lift all restrictions domestically but lose the ability to leave the country for say 2 years - the former affects me every single day, the latter maybe a couple of times a year.

This does suggest we should have locked down earlier (say from 16th March) and probably a bit longer (maybe another 3 week period). I won't agree with stricter, as I think the ability to take exercise has been very important and somewhat of a public health coup given that our down-curve is basically the same shape as Italy. Though I did think £60 penalties rather than say £1000 were a bit weak.