https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...AJJXBKedIP86_2KT6qGWB7d-mg7_wqvkfRTgCc_IMy (admittedly non expert) view is either
a. you do nothing and allow most of the population to be infected, at which point transmission falls to a low value - but that would mean many hundreds of thousands would die, in bad circumstances, since at best we have 10000 beds approx. to support the very ill. A vaccine might arrive in 9 -12 months (that's just a guess), but it will be too late.
b. you isolate as many people as possible and slow the transmission as much as possible, and hold the number of infected people at a sufficiently low number so that less than 10000 need hospitalisation at any one time (some for many weeks). My guess is that you don't want more than 100000 people infected at any one time in any 2 week period. So that means isolation for many months even so many hundreds of people will die a week. Eventually a vaccine will be available and can be used to end the isolation.
The government/NHS have the extraordinary difficult job of finding a way of reducing transmission, without bringing the country to its knees. Every decision made will potentially save lives or end them.
