Talk

Advanced search

Longer term. Is anyone else wondering what will happen?

(42 Posts)
Fluffyglitterystuff Wed 20-May-20 08:11:43

I think we all know it's entirely possible that there'll never be a vaccine. Long term it's possible it will mutate into something less deadly but no guarantees of anything.

I was watching a programme last night and they were saying how there isn't much wiggle room with R, so it's just a trade off. If we want to go back to work/school, have shops open, we won't be able to see family.

When I go out now it's clear that a lot of people have just given up. Lots of large groups congregating, teenagers playing out together. I know of several people/neighbours who are visiting family. I worry that we are just going to see another huge spike in cases.

OP’s posts: |
CountryCasual Wed 20-May-20 08:33:57

I think it was inevitable people would give up. There’s a limit on how long people will comply with such heavy lockdown restrictions.

The issue with CV is the effect it has on vulnerable people, where the death rate sores. Yes some young, fit and healthy people have died but it’s much rarer and they’re not the people the country has locked down to protect.

I think there is a real divide atm, people who have loved ones who need protecting and therefore are still complying vs everyone else who now think the pretty minimal risk is worth taking to get out and normal again.

Unfortunately the later group will mean those of us still complying get stuck significantly longer like this.

TabbyMumz Wed 20-May-20 08:37:29

This is why we didnt go into lockdown earlier, the time needed to be just right in terms of the peak, because people wont do it for long.

Fluffyglitterystuff Wed 20-May-20 08:53:24

I feel that if we did have another spike, people wouldn't accept another lockdown.

But then what? Will cases eventually just get out of control and we will all just have to accept it?

OP’s posts: |
LivingThatLockdownLife Wed 20-May-20 09:02:51

How far ahead do you want to go? There's a finite number of vulnerable people. Assuming you can't get ill from it more than once (have heard otherwise) then you can figure it out.

The flattening of the peak is to afford dignity of healthcare to those who become ill. That's all.

No one is going to say it though.

TheDailyCarbuncle Wed 20-May-20 11:55:11

What'll happen is that governments will eventually figure out that going into a massive panic and setting the economy on fire over a virus that poses a very small risk to the majority of the population is a ridiculous overreaction and will start to stonewall any suggestion of ongoing lockdowns or other such nonsense. When called to on to account for ongoing unemployment, lack of healthcare and education funding and general destruction from lockdown they'll claim it was all necessary and lots of people will believe them. Attempts to show that in the long run lockdown caused more deaths than it prevented will be given some attention but not a lot - no one will quite be able to admit that in attempting not to fall off a cliff, we jumped off instead.

This time next year people will look back on this time with wonder and won't be able to quite believe it happened. Hopefully governments will learn that lockdowns are a very very bad idea (not so confident about this one).

B1rdbra1n Wed 20-May-20 12:04:40

I think my strategy will be placed on a desire to avoid catching it for as long as possible, as time goes on I'm betting that
1- the virus will mutate to a less harmful form
and
2- our ability to treat the illness will improve
So I'm going to do everything I can to maintain my health and well-being whilst minimising the time that I spend in situations where transmission could occur.
I'm not interested in socialising holidays or travel, the only thing I want to do that is risky is go to the gym, so when gyms are open I will assess the risks and proceed accordingly.
Whilst the virus is still around I will continue to only shop twice a week in the same supermarket and I will go at time of day when it's quiet

LikeothersIamjustme Wed 20-May-20 16:02:38

@TheDailyCarbuncle I'd like to think you are right but mass hysteria may prevent that

NotJustACigar Wed 20-May-20 16:07:15

I just don't see why people sure saying the virus possess a risk to only a small percentage of the population, though. My DH is overweight, over 50 and has asthma, my sister has severe asthma, my parents and stepparents are all over 70. I don't have serious risk factors myself beyond high blood pressure but every single other person in my family does. Is that really so unusual?

ACautionaryTale Wed 20-May-20 16:11:01

But even in the highest risk groups, most people survive.

2468whodoyouappreciate Wed 20-May-20 16:20:35

I think well return to a semi normal. A bit freer than now but I think concerts, festivals and football stadiums full of fans won't happen for a very long time.
I think our new semi normal will be how most people will be quite happy to go along with until of course they experience first hand the ultimate horror of this virus.
I think those that have lost loved ones will always be more cautious. The thingb s for most people for number of deaths isnt actually shocking anymore. We're all becoming more desensitised as more figures are thrown at us. We all think it's horrific but until you are a relative of one of those numbers the true horror just does not hit you. Awful that it is, it's human nature. We've all seen those horrific adverts and Red Cross appeals. We think it's awful, dip in our pockets and make a donation then carry on without much thought or upset to our lives.

TheDailyCarbuncle Wed 20-May-20 16:20:41

Even with the crudest data, the case-fatality ratio (ie the number of identified cases who die) of covid is around 4%. That's likely to be a huge overestimation of the number of people who are actually infected who die - data shows that in fact it's less than 1% @NotJustACigar. That includes very elderly people and people with severe underlying illnesses. So if you get it, you have over a 99% chance of survival. For context, the case-fatality ratio of measles is around 15%.

The media has highlighted the very sad cases where healthy people have died. But healthy people also die of flu, meningitis, kidney infections. The sheer quantity of covid infections (because there is no immunity) means that the actual number of these types of deaths is higher but that doesn't mean the actual risk is higher - the overall risk to each individual is actually very low.

Does that make sense?

MarginalGain Wed 20-May-20 16:27:36

I just don't see why people sure saying the virus possess a risk to only a small percentage of the population, though. My DH is overweight, over 50 and has asthma, my sister has severe asthma, my parents and stepparents are all over 70. I don't have serious risk factors myself beyond high blood pressure but every single other person in my family does. Is that really so unusual?

People who have asthma are generally at higher risk for a variety of complications (my MIL has asthma) so coronavirus shouldn't dramatically change the overall picture of risk.

You might find this study interesting

www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-asthma-risk.html

Neither is over 70 a major risk factor in and of itself. Perhaps someone else has the data to hand but I don't think a significant number of people in their 70s without underlying conditions have died.

Being overweight is a risk factor, yes.

ACautionaryTale Wed 20-May-20 16:39:36

Being overweight is - and I have a BMI of 52 and have a very mild case.

I think the overweight factors in if you are unlucky to get a severe reaction but doesnt necessarily mean what you get is severe.

Or, to put it another way, if you are in the 80% that get a mild or moderate version, being fat doesnt have any affect (possibly the same with other conditions). Where it does factor in is if you get a severe dose, how is your body able to deal with it.

WorriedNHSer Wed 20-May-20 16:40:47

I’ve seen a lot of posts recently where people have announced that measles has an extremely high case fatality rate. I’ve seen 5% a few times and now someone above has stated 15%. I have no idea where these figures have come from but they are certainly not at all accurate for western countries with a modern healthcare system.

The CDC says that between 1985-1992 of all the measles cases 0.2% of patients died. It’s possible that even less would die now due to advances in intensive care.

merrymouse Wed 20-May-20 16:44:26

Although the number of people in high risk groups is small, the number of people who would normally be in regular contact with somebody in a high risk group, and care about their wellbeing, is high.

TheDailyCarbuncle Wed 20-May-20 16:49:39

CFR is hard to calculate @WorriedNHSer. WHO research has indicated that CFR for measles can be between 0.05% and 30% depending on the circumstances - obviously the 30% is in situations where general health in the population is very poor or the conditions are very challenging. The key thing is that the 15% CFR has been shown to occur in populations with low immunity, which is the same situation as the one we have with covid.

www.who.int/immunization/sage/Review%20article%20of%20measles%20CFRs.pdf

mumlurker Wed 20-May-20 16:53:53

I am young and healthy - early thirties, no underlying health conditions, very active. I, like thousands of people, have not been hospitalised (one visit from the paramedics eight weeks in after collapsing at home) but have been bedridden for ten weeks. I have heart palpitations, am breathless all the time, and have all sorts of nerve damage. I have no idea when I will start to get better, if I get better at all. The death rates are not the only metric of how foul this virus is.

Eskarina1 Wed 20-May-20 16:57:06

I think long term if there was no vaccine, no immunity and no effective treatment a really strong track and trace system, quarantine and some behavioural changes would allow a return to some form of normality.

I really don't think the government are going to be accused of overreacting. This is the 4th potential pandemic of my working life (20ish years) and the first one to get this reaction. I was involved in the local nhs planning for swine flu. The worst case isnt death rate, it's numbers ill at once. Lots of talk about how 20% of people being off sick at once would decimate essential services. That is what exponential growth means. It's not a risk the government could take. There is plenty to blame them for, but once it reached the stage it did they had no choice.

Mynydd Wed 20-May-20 16:59:25

On mumsnet most people seem to think that the economy will be fucked for generations to come, our children will all become agoraphobic and obsessive-compulsive, suicide rates will soar and we will be irrevocably damaged.

I think we will get on board with masks and track, trace and quarantine, R rates will fall, successful treatments will continue to emerge, a vaccine may be introduced and we will survive. We will also survive the recession, as societies generally do.

Inkpaperstars Wed 20-May-20 17:02:04

This is why we didnt go into lockdown earlier, the time needed to be just right in terms of the peak, because people wont do it for long.

I don't understand this, because the peak is an artificially created one and so its timing is influenced by when we lockdown, not the other way round.

MarginalGain Wed 20-May-20 17:07:06

^ On mumsnet most people seem to think that the economy will be fucked for generations to come, our children will all become agoraphobic and obsessive-compulsive, suicide rates will soar and we will be irrevocably damaged^

Let’s just wait and see what happens when Sunak inevitably releases his emergency budget. I really hope I’m overreacting as you seem to think some are but I fear I am not.

AuldAlliance Wed 20-May-20 17:17:52

But even in the highest risk groups, most people survive.
They do if they have access to appropriate healthcare. Which means if hospitals are not overwhelmed. That was the point of lockdown - reducing the number of simultaneous cases to allow healthcare systems to deal with them and thus allow "most people" to survive.

Puzzledandpissedoff Wed 20-May-20 17:23:38

I feel that if we did have another spike, people wouldn't accept another lockdown

I'm quite certain most wouldn't, so if there IS another major spike (rather than a few scattered cases) they'll probably do what should have been done in the first place ... shield the genuinely vulnerable and leave everyone else to use their common sense

Eskarina1 Wed 20-May-20 17:40:57

If another lockdown is needed, which is a big if, they don't need our consent. They won't just say "fuck it" no one fancies a lock down so we'll keep going while vital services (police, health, fire, schools, food, energy and everything else) fails because millions are ill at once. They'll do a Spainish style lockdown and enforce it.

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 »