Yeah the staffing in ICU is going to be a huge issue sadly - just one of the many reasons we need to ensure those staff are protected with adequate masks etc and their workload managed to avoid burnout/collapse.I agree. My only contention with that is that they appear to have only looked at the impact a strategy will have on the epidemic, not on the economy (and the subsequent impact it falling off a cliff would have on society). My impression was that Witty has been looking at things from a wide range of perspectives rather than purely from an immunology point of view.
It's hard to see how ICU capacity can be greatly increased really, as while you 'may' be able to procure more equipment, the staffing will be a huge issue. It's possible that people with prior experience in ICU could be called back and given refreshers, but equally it's possible/probable that sickness rates among staff will be higher than normal. It wouldn't surprise me 'that' much if it doesn't end up in nurses having two or more patients rather than the 1-to-1 that is normal in ICU, which is not ideal either, whether for the patients or the staff. I mean it's not like the NHS can recruit a bunch of people from overseas, you know?
I also recall my wife saying that most ICU nurses are fairly young, as the intensity of the job means it isn't often a career for a prolonged period of time, so it's not like there will be a large cohort of retirees to call upon.
This is just me chewing the fat, of course, so who knows how things will turn out. It'll be a tough 18 months however it unfolds though.
The testing, early isolation of pre-symptomatic cases and contact tracing are logistical/training issues that will probably get resolved earlier which will hopefully help with the suppression part.