Talk

Advanced search

‘We are all going to get it eventually’ nonsense

(36 Posts)
Redolent Sun 03-May-20 12:31:04

Why do people keep repeating this as though it’s a statement of fact? It’s not. This approach aka gradual herd immunity would lead to 100,000’s of deaths over time and was clearly been rejected by the government in March.

The alternative recommended by WHO and soon to be followed in the UK is ‘test test test’, contract tracing, quarantining. The point is to get the R sufficiently low so as to make that possible.

The countries and regions with the lowest death rates are those that have pursued relentless community testing.

‘Living with the virus’ doesn’t mean making your peace with the fact that we’re all going to get it. It means accepting that we’ll be treading the line between social distancing measures and economic/ social stability for some time.

OP’s posts: |
PowerslidePanda Sun 03-May-20 14:05:04

The voice of reason - rare on this board at the moment! And the thread dropped to the bottom of the board without any replies - typical!

As I said on another thread - without knowing both the replication rate after lockdown and the timescale for a vaccine, nobody can possibly assert that "we're probably all going to get it" - especially when that flies in the face of both strategy and logic!

Hadenoughfornow Sun 03-May-20 14:11:36

To me, I will live with the reality that I may catch it and my family may catch it before a vaccine is found.

We each need to make our own personal decision whether that is am acceptable risk or not. But it will probably become the case that the government will soon only support those most at risk.

To me, I am prepared to accept the risk. Kids will go back to school, and go to the parks, days out etc.

I accept that it will not be the same as it was before and we will continue to socially distance and follow all guidelines.

But we do need to continue letting people catch it until a vaccine is found, at a rate which is manageable.

Inkpaperstars Sun 03-May-20 14:13:28

Yes, agreed. Also, in Chris Whitty's recent covid lecture for Gresham College he said that over the course of the epidemic, even without a vaccine, a high proportion will not become infected.

Add to that the fact that they are at least aiming to keep R low and supressed until we hopefully do have a vaccine and the idea that we are all going to get it is very odd.

ofwarren Sun 03-May-20 14:13:37

Well said OP. I keep seeing this repeated on posts when there is no evidence to show that this is the case.

Hadenoughfornow Sun 03-May-20 14:13:40

Should say our work situations have not changed since lockdown. So that is why work not mentioned above.

Inkpaperstars Sun 03-May-20 14:15:16

I agree Hadenough but that's a long way from 'we will all get it'.

RoosterPie Sun 03-May-20 14:15:24

We aren’t all going to get it but I think it’s the opposite extreme to the other commonly seen view of people saying they won’t go back to work etc because it isn’t safe, without those people appreciating that it’s out there and life involves the risk of catching it for the foreseeable future.

The truth is somewhere between those two extremes.

PumpkinP Sun 03-May-20 14:15:27

I keep reading on here all the time that will we all get it, it's been making me so anxious .

Inkpaperstars Sun 03-May-20 14:17:40

Whitty also mentioned in the lecture that one approach with vaccination is to attempt whole population vaccination to create immunity and he emphasised that is the only situation in which you would pursue herd immunity as a policy.

Mustbetimeforachange Sun 03-May-20 14:20:44

We all get all the other 4 coronaviruses that are in common circulation, why should this be any different? They do not cause lasting immunity and kill a small percentage of people. It is likely that his one will circulate in the same way, we may not all get it at once, but sooner or later most of us will have it. Unless it fades away like MERS & SARS but that's looking unlikely at the moment.
Have you talked to any doctors about the her immunity thing? The ones I know believe this is still the plan.

Keepdistance Sun 03-May-20 14:20:53

I think it's because gov messaging has been very confusing
- Shield
-vulnerable practise stringent social distsncing.
-over 70 stay in.

But then we wont close schools
We will reopen schools.
We wont mandate masks
Go out for walks but stay apart.

Parliament hiding away at home and people wfh.

It is confusing because basically they want the workers out there working even if it kills them but they want to be hiding themselves. And i agree some people need to keep things running but others are just about bosses making money.
Almost all other countries are trying to keep the deaths to a minimum.

mac12 Sun 03-May-20 14:23:27

The "we're all going to get it anyway" line is so defeatist, like we should accept a new and unknown risk in our population. There's increasing evidence of long term health impacts - compromised lung function, kidney failure, chronic fatigue, heart damage and neurological issues. This was also seen with SARS. The existing endemic coronaviruses are increasingly linked with MS and Parkinsons. COVID-19 may not kill most of us now...but what about the longer term health risks?
We just don't know enough about it yet, new research is coming out all the time - I think our public health officials and governments should err on the side of extreme caution until we know more. And no, that doesn't mean an economy-wrecking extension of the lockdown but a complete commitment to test, trace and isolate, wit health checks and quarantines at ports/airports - which is what we should have done from the very beginning.

Pebble21uk Sun 03-May-20 14:24:37

Completely agree OP... I think so many people on here are just using the 'we're all going to get it so get on with it, get a grip etc' mantra as an excuse to end lockdown asap and go back to 'normal', whatever the consequences.
I really think a lot of people just can't comprehend that something can interrupt their lives because we live in a modern, western nation where there is no precedent in living memory.

Derbygerbil Sun 03-May-20 14:26:12

Yes, agreed. Also, in Chris Whitty's recent covid lecture for Gresham College he said that over the course of the epidemic, even without a vaccine, a high proportion will not become infected.

What Chris Whitty said is consistent with herd immunity... Depending on how infectious Covid is, herd immunity is reckoned to be between 60-80% of the population... That would mean 20-40% wouldn’t catch it - which would be a high proportion.

Keepdistance Sun 03-May-20 14:29:21

It's a bit like the government have conscripted people into a war. That most other countries avoided. But we are stuck in a warzone. (With an awful general).
People sent over the top with no gas masks on. But they wont wait for the supply to arrive or in fact buy more and won t let people use them . They wont track where the enemy is or try to stop the enemy entering the country.

Inkpaperstars Sun 03-May-20 14:34:14

Yes that could be what he meant Derby. He didn't really elaborate.

Herd immunity through vaccination is obviously the current best hope.

Derbygerbil Sun 03-May-20 14:34:17

Add to that the fact that they are at least aiming to keep R low and supressed until we hopefully do have a vaccine and the idea that we are all going to get it is very odd.

Yes, the plan seems to be to open up as much as possible over time whilst keeping R0 below zero. This isn’t consistent with developing herd immunity. The hope seems to be through a combination of moderated shielding and social distancing, widespread contact tracing and testing, we can get most of the economy back whilst doing this. We accept some economic pain and social inconvenience as a price for 100,000s
not dying... a compromise that sits between “let it rip” and “lockdown”. We couldn’t do this in March - nowhere could - but hopefully we will in a month or so. This relies on a vaccine in a year or so, as it’s not sustainable forever!

Hadenoughfornow Sun 03-May-20 14:59:11

It's a bit like the government have conscripted people into a war. That most other countries avoided

We still need to be rational about this even if we dislike and mistrust the govt.

We do not know what the long term outcome will be for any country.

We just need to hope that the actions being taken in our country are the best for us.

And that does include the balance that needs to be made between health and economy.

ViVii Sun 03-May-20 15:15:24

Thanks OP.

I for one am tired of people saying we're all going to get it, statements like that can be very damaging for individuals with fragile mental health and will terrify people.

nellodee Sun 03-May-20 15:23:56

Completely agree. It also gets me when people say, the aim isn't to save lives, it's to stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. You can't achieve one without achieving the other, even if you wanted to.

Either cases go up and up and the NHS gets overwhelmed. Or they go down and down and we practically eradicate it. Or we somehow manage to walk an absolute tightrope of perfect equilibrium and cases remains totally steady. Since we're not planning for the first scenario, we're not intending on everyone getting it.

eeeyoresmiles Sun 03-May-20 16:20:55

Even if in five years time this virus is circulating and many more people have been exposed to it, there's a world of difference between eventually reaching that state and rushing into it over the course of a few months. There's so much we can still learn about it and about the illness it causes.

Even six months from now treatment protocols will be more refined so more people recover, we'll know better what the signs are of someone's condition worsening - it's not the case that until we've got a vaccine/miracle drug we might as well have nothing. Time is not just useful for reducing the load on the NHS - it gives us vital information.

We have nothing to lose by trying as hard as we can to reduce transmission and have as few people as possible catch it. Yes we have to live with a risk of getting it, but it's a mistake to think we somehow need people to get it - we really don't. Without knowing how long immunity lasts, we can't even know how useful people who've already had it are as 'firebreaks' in the community to stop transmission.

Being afraid of catching this virus is appropriate and useful. What we want ASAP is a situation in which we're all appropriately afraid of the virus (so we're careful), but not of going outside and going to work or going shopping. The way we achieve that is to work really really hard collectively at keeping the amount of virus out there very low (by testing, tracking, quarantining, personal behaviours etc.).

The collective effort involved in all the testing, tracking, quarantining, changing business and personal behaviours is considerable, but much better than either (a) another lockdown or (b) uncontrolled spread of the illness (which also fucks up the economy). No one is going to go to that collective effort though, if people are going round saying "we'll all get it eventually anyway". It's just not true, and it's not what we want - the fewer people who go through this illness at this early stage the better.

Stellamboscha Sun 03-May-20 16:29:17

Loads of people I know have already had it -none severe and none hospitalised. Had been overhyped to scare the population into staying indoors and the message has been too successful so people are now terrified and want to cower under their duvet still the end of time.

LangClegsInSpace Sun 03-May-20 16:30:25

Yes, thank you OP!

I watch the WHO press conferences and the strategy they outline for containing this virus makes perfect sense. Then I come on here and everyone seems completely stuck on lockdown vs we all get it, as if there are no other options until we have a vaccine, and I feel like I'm going mad.

Even on this thread, most people seem to have missed the most important part of your post:

The alternative recommended by WHO and soon to be followed in the UK is ‘test test test’, contract tracing, quarantining.

It's not just the number of tests, it's who we test and what we do once we know someone has it.

LangClegsInSpace Sun 03-May-20 16:37:36

Mustbetimeforachange MERS and SARS did not just fade away!

SARS was eradicated through a process of case finding, isolation, contact tracing and quarantine.

MERS has not yet been completely eradicated but outbreaks are contained by exactly the same methods.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »