I think there are some factual issues with your post - but having read some of your posts, I suspect you won't mind me saying what I think they are, and I am saying it here only because such fallacies are the very basis of the decisions made by our Government, tragically:
No problem!
o vaccine" does not logically follow that "any measures will only delay the spread of the virus". There is still no vaccine for SARS (or the more recent MERS and EBOLA), but SARS was declared contained by the WHO in 2003, one year after it broke out. It infected 8000 people killing nearly 10% of them. It was "starved" out by isolation, like what China is doing with COVID-19 - do you know that China only found 25 new cases today, while Italy found 3500? I appreciate many do not believe Chinese statistics, with or without good reason, but if you look, you will see Korea is going the same way as China. If Italy had not been complacent, and had learnt the lessons from China, the Italian number would likely have been close to zero today, just like Hongkong's. So no, it is not true that measures will only delay the spread of the virus - measures can eliminate virus quickly leading to relatively very few if any ever getting infected, without a vaccine, and for a long time.
I think SARS is slightly different. From what I read, although the mortality rate was much worse, the virus was only contagious once symptons were showing, and the symptons were generally so bad that the patient would be in hospital by that time. COVID-19 is more effective as a virus since it appears more transmissable (is that a word?) than SARS and the symptons can be light enough for people to continue with their activities thinking they have only a heavy cold. Ebola is way on the other end of the scale - not transmissable without physical contact and so deadly that it is actually counterproductive for the virus - patients just are critically ill and die too quickly for them to spread the virus.
But it is a series of unknowns.
You say "a big recession will harm people as well." That is patently true, however the question I would like you to consider, is whether an economy would be less damaged if only 5000 were infected, or 50,000 (the very minimum I wager Italy will end up with), or perhaps 40 millions (the minimum to achieve "herd immunity" in UK as our Chief Scientific Adviser has been suggesting)? Why would the former be a less preferred outcome, by earlier intervention, when it causes fewer deaths, allows earlier relaxation of intervention, less disruption etc.? How can that be inferior economically? We are only two weeks behind the bloodbath that is Italy - is that preferable economically?
Again, a real unknown. It is also won't help too much to be economically sound if the rest of the world is going through a deep recession. We won't be immune from the events in other countries - especially Europe. My comment was more a reflection on tweets I have seen berating the government for considering the economic implications. Well, of course they are - and it only moral to do so as deep recessions hurt people - generally those who can least afford it.
ou wrote "liberal democracies won't take to indeterminate lock-downs in the same way as possibly the Chinese system might. Lock down now and it is possible that when it is really required then people will have become complacent and unwilling to comply." I don't know what sort of period you are talking about that you think is required for "lockdown", but even in Hubei, they unblocked Qianjiang, a city of 1 million, two days ago. All Apple stores are now open in China apparently. In Hongkong, there was never even a lockdown per se, simply most people who could work from home did so, schools closed, mass gatherings stopped etc. What I do know, is that people in Hongkong are very glad they are not in Italy, or Britain. What makes you think Brits would think differently when they look across the pond towards USA in a few weeks' time? I hear people in Italy are angry that their directives from the Government came so late!
Qioanjiang has been in lockdown since mid Jan, only just being released now. And the measures were tough. It is also not certain what will happen when these prvinces return back to normal - but China will no doubt lock them down again if COVID-19 cases increase. I don't wish to labour the point on "cultural differences" but it has to be considered - Chinese people are far more used to state intervention whilst we are not. My cousin lives in China and knows Chinese students in the UK are returning home because they are unhappy that our government isn't locking down everywhere. They appear to have an expectation of heavy state intervention which we simply aren't used to.
Us Brits do like to imagine we have a stoic attitude in the face of adversity with "The Blitz" being cited. And to some extent that might be true, but it is a cliche which hasn't needed to be tested for decades. The UK doesn't have major natural crises like other countries. On the other end of the cliche spectrum people were phoning 999 when KFC ran out of chicken, and are stockpiling bog roll now for reasons that seem rather elusive.
I think the government is hoping that a Hong Kong approach will work in the UK because I think we should have concerns over lockdown strategies.
Knowing the strategy is important, because what the government is doing, or more accurately not doing, is anything but flattening the curve - we can all see that without serious intervention the curve is growing exponentially. What can possibly be the benefit of that?
In my view nobody knows what the government's "position" is - if we knew we would have understood how on earth a delay in social distancing e.g., will delay the explosion of the number infected, when it obviously WILL lead to far more getting infected and die, taking the economy/society longer to recover. How can it possibly be beneficial socially and economically? Do you know?
If you don't know, why would you say "the government's position makes certain sense"?
The government's communications suck. Today it appears that they are using the old technique of off the record briefings which are deeply inappropriate for this time. Matt Hancock apparently was talking about engineering companies such as Rolls Royce repurposing for medical equipment. This is laughable.
But when the government medical experts talk, I think their strategy makes logical sense. It may turn out to be the wrong approach, who knows at the moment? But I understand the logic to it. My understanding is that they aim to take measures to try to slow the spread with plans in place to lockdown quickly when the spread starts to accelerate. The leaking around the elderly and vulnerable being encouraged to isolate seems to make sense to me as well - try to keep those worst affected away from the virus whilst hoping that those healthy will help contain the spread with developed immunity.
It is a big risk. We are still not 100% sure that those who have had the virus actually exhibit effective immunity. But everything is a risk. Lock down entire regions and the risk is that the virus starts spreading quickly again as soon as the lockdown is lifted.
In all cases, I think this virus will be with us for at least another 12 months.