Covid

Exactly. A pandemic with a high mortality rate would be carnage. We wouldn't see 'following the rules' we'd see the breakdown of society.

Covid wasn't that dangerous (really) for healthy, working age people. I'm not sure we would ever hit that sweet spot again.

I had a 1 year old and got made redundant day 1 of lockdown anyway, but I honestly can't say that I wouldn't have quit a customer-facing job and used credit cards (back at the start with the waves of deaths in Italy and the Daily Death Toll with Boris/Shitty/Sunak on the telly).

This is exactly what I mean.

One blessing with covid is we never got to the stage where there was any real possibility of systems just... stopping. Of face to face workers not even being able to get to work if they wanted to, because there's no petrol at the pumps or public transport. There's no guarantee anything would be functioning properly in a more dangerous pandemic, and the more dangerous the virus the less likely it is.

So for me, the more salient issue is whether there's still space for another pandemic to be able to do what covid did. That is, frighten people just the right amount. I'm sceptical at the moment, but if it does exist then I think it has to go waaaay below 30% mortality when easily transmissible.

It would be pretty much the walking dead, you’re right

I agree with this. In any pandemic they'll need to keep those essential workers coming to work. People may go on about "oh I bet if the next pandemic has a mortality of 50% those covid deniers will stay home and follow the rules!!!" as if it's some kind of win. But what they fail to realise is the essential workers will also stay home. How many (normally pretty low paid) nurses do you know that would go to work knowing there's a high chance they'll die and/ or pass on this highly deadly virus to their families? Same goes for delivery drivers (and I don't just mean amazon. Supermarket delivery. Long haul lorry drivers. Etc). I really don't think sainsbury's would have ANY staff in if there was a chance they'd actually catch this awful virus and very likely die.
I work in dentistry. We were closed for the first 3 months of covid. I think if a similar thing happened again we wouldn't close like that. Not for emergencies at least. But if you think I'd go to work if there was a chance I'd catch this 50% mortality virus then you're having a laugh. And neither would the 4 dentists at my work who all have small children at home. They wouldn't risk their families lives no matter how much pain someone was in. And I'm pretty sure no amount of promises about super duper masks etc would make a difference for most people.

So if a virus was to occur that stopped essential workers working, society would start to break down. People need to eat. They need to stay warm. They need a functioning sewage system. You'd get people looting and stealing in desperation. Breaking into neighbours houses for food for their children. Violence.

So yes you need to avoid scaring the essential workers from working. Otherwise the fall out would be even worse than the virus.

Testing negative and not coughing / sweating / having other active symptoms. If I'm definitely negative and not coughing etc, I'm not going to pass anything on, and can have the screening mask-free.

I'm immune-suppressed myself, so could well take longer to get over it than people with better immune systems. I should be able to work my treatment injections around appointments & vaccinations now.

What do you mean you should be ok for the mammogram next month?

You do, you’re just not carrying sufficient amounts of the virus to show up on the test.

They don’t let you have a general anaesthetic if you’d had any cough/cold/respiratory infections or symptoms recently, too risky to put the breathing tube down there. Surgeons aren’t being anaesthetised so they’re fine.

Personal decision for me - and I know I'm an outlier - but I've recently had covid and postponed a blood test and a mammogram, because I didn't want to potentially infect an NHS worker who sees many immune-suppressed patients on an average day, and/or people who don't get sick pay.

When I finally tested negative and had my blood test on Friday I wore a mask, to be on the safe side for the NHS phlebotomist. They churn through, what? - maybe twelve patients or more an hour?

I should be ok for the mammogram next month but I'll mask up if I think I need to. Bottom line - NHS testers and screeners are far more important than me.

With a much higher mortality rate, if pretty transmissible like covid and the normal bugs we're used to, I reckon we'd be fucked.

There's an interesting discussion to be had about an illness that would make people scared enough to voluntarily restrict their lives but not so scared that the people who keep the lights on, shelves stocked etc stop coming to work. Because that's what you need for a lockdown to work. It's a policy for a society that's still functioning. I don't think an illness with 30% mortality, unless it was really hard to transmit, falls into that space.

I wonder how people would behave with something with a much higher mortality rate?

Say 30?

It's refreshing to read this take from someone who's restriction minded, but honest enough to acknowledge where the population are.

I fully agree that widespread compliance would be unlikely if faced with another pandemic/iteration of this one now, and until there've been some very significant changes in public trust. There's a tendency from some people who don't want to hear that to bury their heads in the sand and tell people they'd just have to behave.

wow What an emotional rollercoaster the OP has been through here. Was nearly at a&e last night and now is ecstatically happy this morning.

I agree with you, all of the passive aggressive eye rolls 🙄 from people who are still loving the testing are pretty irritating to be honest. If you want to waste your money confirming you have a virus @Flute56 and @wombat15 then crack on. Knowing you have it is just curiosity and if you feel unwell use your common sense and stay home and away from vulnerable people.

So what's your problem with what I said? It's how most people are living their lives now and it includes being mindful of others.

If you're too ill to go out you stay at home. If you have symptoms you could pass on to others you stay at home if you can - that's not feasible for everyone. If you have any viral symptoms you avoid the elderly, frail and immunosuppressed. There's generally little need to test now.

It's.not utter madness not to test. I was forced to test for work and I will not do them. If I get COVID so be it. I'm not bothered by it considering the job I did during covid where I saw people die and I'm refusing the COVID jab now as I'm eligible but prefer my own natural defence.

Are you still short of breath? Do you also have health anxiety?

Yes you can. But not from something as widespread, infectious and virulent as Covid

Flu is seasonal, glandular fever is age related, most other things are vaccinated.

But in terms of PV illness, Covid is the worse and the most virulent. So affects more people. 60m worldwide and 3 m in UK. No other post viral illness has impacted world wide economic output. It’s affecting U.K. economic output. No other illness has done this. Except possibly the Spanish flu.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow but you can get post viral long term chronic health issues

Thanks, please can you link me in to some research papers confirming this,