Are we delaying the inevitable?

[Slytherin]

I am wondering if we are delaying the inevitable here with continued lockdowns/social distancing etc.
These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control.
Surely the virus will continue to circulate whatever happens, until it has burnt itself out/finished its natural run?
Unless a vaccine/decent treatment is found sooner.

[DebLou47]

Yep the fall out will be worse than the virus

[Illusionordelusion]

Ultimately yes but there may be a vaccine and better treatments soon. So it’s wise to currently mitigate risk as much as possible. This isn’t at all sustainable though.

[YewHedge]

We absolutely cannot let this virus rip through the population.
ALL lives matter including elderly and those with underlying health conditions.
Finances, education, both can be recovered but there is no recovery from death.

[Spinakker]

I agree op. But I can see why people want to fight for survival. But at what cost..

[Polkasquare]

I am not sure it will burn itself out. Does it work like that?

[Aquamarine1029]

Finances, education, both can be recovered but there is no recovery from death.

Worldwide economic devastation will cause more suffering and deaths than this virus will. There are no easy solutions to be had.

[nether]

Agree with YewHedge

And would add that it's also necessary to keep cases at a level where we no longer need to shut down almost all of the NHS and re-purpose it to covid wards.

[Ylvamoon]

I think it's here to stay. Maybe it's nature's way...
Lockdown and social distancing are not about stopping it, it's about slowing it down.
We "eradicated/ control" many viruses after they run wild, this one will get the same treatment. Then an other one will pop up, rinse and repeat

[SengaStrawberry]

@Illusionordelusion

Ultimately yes but there may be a vaccine and better treatments soon. So it’s wise to currently mitigate risk as much as possible. This isn’t at all sustainable though.

This. It’s buying time and damage mitigation meantime.

[Jaxhog]

These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control.

You're a ray of sunshine, aren't you! You make it sound like a planned and necessary act. Would you like to set up euthanasia booths too?

[Jaxhog]

Finances, education, both can be recovered but there is no recovery from death.

Quite.

[Slytherin]

@Jaxhog it’s nature taking its course. It’s nothing to do with planning. It just happens.

[Jaxhog]

@slytherin (how well named you are!) So we should 'just let nature take its course' with cancer, heart attacks, disability, MH, etc. too?

[Diplidally]

No. If hold this back long enough for an effective treatment and/or vaccine to be found, many less will die or suffer long-lasting effects.

[Chessie678]

@YewHedge
"For every 1 percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die." That's a quote from the Big Short but based on sound research. It was fact checked on BBC's More or Less a while ago. You can quibble with the exact numbers but unemployment is very strong correlated with lower life expectancy. There is no real doubt that lockdown will cause mass long-term unemployment. There are then all the effects of lockdown itself like lack of medical treatment for non-covid ilnesses, effect on mental health etc. which will cause more deaths. And, as the restrictions continue, real concern as to how we are going to fund public services in future given falling tax revenues and the huge cost of the furlough scheme.

It just isn't as simple as lockdown = lives saved and no lockdown = kill people but save the economy. Finances is basically the reason why people who live in the developed world have a longer life expectancy than those who live in the developing world.

There isn't an easy answer partly as we don't really know if it's possible to control covid with lockdowns until a treatment / vaccine is available and we don't really know what the effect of lifting restrictions would be (e.g. if and when the virus would burn itself out).

I'm sceptical about lockdown policies because I think the longterm damage they could do including to life expectancy could dwarf the effects of covid itself and because it's not even clear that these policies are going to save anyone longterm. Not because I don't value the lives of people dying of covid.

[BrieAndChilli]

@YewHedge

We absolutely cannot let this virus rip through the population.
ALL lives matter including elderly and those with underlying health conditions.
Finances, education, both can be recovered but there is no recovery from death.

Yes all lives matter but there will come a point where more lives will be lost due to lockdown - suicide rates have doubled, a recession will see poverty and the deaths that occur from that, other illnesses such as cancer are not being spotted in time which will result in more cancer deaths, people not going to A&E in fear of catching Covid will result in more deaths, there will be a lot of other ramifications that aren’t immediate death but will result in deaths further down the line.
At what point do we decide that the lives saved from Covid no longer outweighs the lives being lost due to lockdown?

[HotPenguin]

If by the "inevitable" you mean death, I'm up for delaying that as long as I can.

[Comicstar]

If you are under 60 you have more chance of dying from drowning than dying from Covid. The vunerable in society should be protected and everythingelse should reopen; until the virus has a lower infection rate. The only thing I think that should be postponed (for now) is large mass gatherings.

[Whatnext2018]

@Comicstar Is that true? Where do you find that statistic? It’s comforting though 🙏

[uniglowooljumper]

Yes, at the expense and deaths of many thousands of people from other causes and increased poverty. But hey, it's not Covid so worth it.

[Chloemol]

Tell you what, you and everyone else who agrees with you can carry on, ignore the rules, get the virus, and hope you don’t need hospital treatment, or suffer the long term consequences that are being identified

Then that will work towards herd immunity for the rest of us who see why we need to follow guidelines, and protect others lives

So off you go

[AlecTrevelyan006]

Remember folks, only Covid deaths matter...

[tigger001]

@comicstar, but can you see the point of view that to have a society where the vulnerable can not partake is not a fair society. Should we not do what's best for everyone, rather than allowing the majority to continue a "normal" life while we hide away our venerable.

There is also evidence that although the older are more susceptible to dying, the young who do get it could be left with life long conditions.


There needs to be a balance for the economy to return as best as safety possible but also protect our venerable. In Manchester you can sit in a pub and socially distance, but you can't sit in a garden, in the fresh air and socially distance. It's ridiculous, you can only see people if you are spending money, not keeping safe.

[scaevola]

That statistics about drowning only works when rates are pretty low, so you can avoid catching it nearly as reliably as you can avoid going in water. About 400 people (all ages) die by drowning every year, which compared rather unfavourably to the number of covid deaths

22% of Covid deaths (source the Guardian) are under 65, so that about 10,000 deaths. OK there's a 5 year difference in the stats I found, but does that cover the >9000 discrepancy?

Also, do bear in mind that an uncontrolled spike brings chaotic shutdown (because so many people are so ill, and even more of the NHS shuts) and supply chains fail, and businesses collapse catastrophically. That means deeper recession and more deaths related to poverty and to restriction of non-Covid healthcare

[uniglowooljumper]

@Chloemol

Tell you what, you and everyone else who agrees with you can carry on, ignore the rules, get the virus, and hope you don’t need hospital treatment, or suffer the long term consequences that are being identified

Then that will work towards herd immunity for the rest of us who see why we need to follow guidelines, and protect others lives

So off you go

Tell you what, why assume people aren't following 'the rules', which arbitrarily chop and change nearly daily, because they don't agree with you, or that they haven't yet had the virus or that everyone who does will get sick, or does that just give you the warm fuzzies?

It's not going anywhere, lockdowns and the like aren't sustainable long term. That's a fact.