Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Covid-19 and purity spirals

684 replies

DreadPirateLuna · 09/04/2020 13:54

Covid-19 is a very serious illness which threatens our most vulnerable and risks overwhelming the NHS. We should all do what we can to flatten the curve and save lives. People whose behaviour risks lives (e.g. urban residents traveling out to holiday homes in rural communities) should face criticism and sanctions.

However, I can't help feeling that some of the outrage at some behaviours is less about reducing the spread and more about getting caught in a "purity spiral".

Take all the outrage about people in parks. Fresh air and sunshine is good for physical and mental health, it improves the immune system which is particularly important during an epidemic! Many urban residents have no other source of open space except the local park. The ability to get outside can be lifesaving for victims of DV. Risks of contracting disease are very low if you keep your distance from others outside your household.

Yet I've seen photos of walkers and family groups in parks, keeping far away from others, but accused of selfishness and killing the elderly and disrespecting the NHS. Parks in London have been closed, meaning more congestion of other areas and residents confined to homes, which is damaging for reasons outlined above.

And it's usually (though not exclusively) women and esp mothers who get blamed. Those selfish Karens and their broods.

A more sensible solution would be to allow restricted access to the parks. Maybe allow only locals in nearby flats without gardens. But it seems we're not doing sensible these days.

OP posts:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:52

In that vein, it's more taking advantage of a fear spiral than a purity spiral but behold, special anti viral tissues.

www.amazon.co.uk/Kleenex-Anti-Viral-Facial-Tissue-boxes/dp/B004W6X7D0?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

Tootletum · 12/04/2020 15:52

I agree with all your points OP, but you're wasting your breath on the 80% of Mumsnet that are mainly interested in authoritarian interpretation of the rules whilst they sit in their gardens.

StatisticallyChallenged · 12/04/2020 15:48

No, the testing implants a special tracker up your nose. The government can now read your thoughts.

It's the 5G that's going to give us the autism...

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:47

And at some point someone will insist that testing causes autism.

nolongersurprised · 12/04/2020 15:42

No, they'll be told to have one antibody test a year and if it's negative they must stay at home until the next one. Purity spiral v2.0

I’m properly laughing now and DH is fast asleep.

StatisticallyChallenged · 12/04/2020 15:40

No, they'll be told to have one antibody test a year and if it's negative they must stay at home until the next one. Purity spiral v2.0

nolongersurprised · 12/04/2020 15:40

I read your "test every two weeks" comment before I saw this and my head had already started doing the maths and exploding!

If the test could be expanded to do IgM testing as well as IgG that would help with the two week lag time. Although probably need to know how long serological immunity lasts first.

Surely longer than a year though? Which would be useful for the immediate problem.
Passive immunity from placental IgG transfer from mother to fetus lasts until the baby is about 1 year, you’d think if you had then virus you’d get at least a year’s immunity out of it. Although there’s viral mutation as well, I suppose.

I think it’s time for me to sleep!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:39

Discipline! And all that shit!

(Joking obviously).

Just wait, when antibody tests become available that will be the next "you're a bastard who wants everyone to die if you don't get one every fortnight" topic, and some people will be coming back with "well I as a responsible person get tested every 3 days, so there!", and some other person will be all "I still think this is just like the flu and everyone is exaggerating so I do not intend to get tested ever".

isabellerossignol · 12/04/2020 15:32

You're right TheProdigal, I need to stop responding to the obvious goading. I've got to the point where I'm not sure I even believe the sob story any more, I think it's a wind up and I have fallen for it. Will I ever learn?

StatisticallyChallenged · 12/04/2020 15:31

(Joking obviously).

I read your "test every two weeks" comment before I saw this and my head had already started doing the maths and exploding!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:28

Disengage, isabelle, it's very freeing!

(I know it's easy to get pulled in out of irritation but honestly, is it worth bothering?)

isabellerossignol · 12/04/2020 15:24

Why the comparison with tb a century ago then? It has no relevance really what people would have accepted government doing then because we are in a different time. We don't accept government doing many things that were acceptable a century ago

Which is exactly what I said.

I don't know whether you simply skim read things and don't bother trying to understand them, or if you are determined to find something to criticise just because it makes your situation feel more bearable, but honestly it is pretty tedious.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 12/04/2020 15:18

Why the comparison with tb a century ago then? It has no relevance really what people would have accepted government doing then because we are in a different time. We don't accept government doing many things that were acceptable a century ago

nolongersurprised · 12/04/2020 15:17

(Joking obviously).

nolongersurprised · 12/04/2020 15:16

I think I caught something the other day that suggested the antibody tests will only work a few weeks after infection (due to the time taken for the antibodies to develop) so you could very easily still miss people who are infected.

Everyone could be tested every two weeks then, work retesting of negative people two weeks after that and so on.

We don't seem to have a definitive answer as to how long any resulting immunity might last for either.

Then start all over again with everyone 6 months later to see who maintains their immunity.

There wouldn’t be time for any other public health measures, mind you.

isabellerossignol · 12/04/2020 15:12

Quite a lot of things used to kill us a century ago though. Childbirth, bacterial infections before antibiotics, surgery without anaesthetic - not sure anyone would be rushing to go back to Victorian times in terms of other health issues.

Could you direct me to the part in my post where I said that we should be going back to Victorian times please? Or indeed anything that even vaguely resembled that? Thanks.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:10

We don't seem to have a definitive answer as to how long any resulting immunity might last for either.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 12/04/2020 15:10

isabellerossignol

Quite a lot of things used to kill us a century ago though. Childbirth, bacterial infections before antibiotics, surgery without anaesthetic - not sure anyone would be rushing to go back to Victorian times in terms of other health issues.

StatisticallyChallenged · 12/04/2020 15:09

I think I caught something the other day that suggested the antibody tests will only work a few weeks after infection (due to the time taken for the antibodies to develop) so you could very easily still miss people who are infected.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:08

I think it's kind of hard to judge how much the Tory victory this time tells us about what the public will tolerate given the opposition's apparent eagerness to defeat themselves. Though having said that I don't have much confidence in that changing in time for the next election.

nolongersurprised · 12/04/2020 15:06

Literally no way of knowing who is infected and who isn’t

Apart from testing, obviously. Antibody testing, when available there will be immensely helpful. But the U.K. has low rates of those who have been tested at baseline, the lowest of the European counties and 1/2 those of the US and 1/3 of Australia so there’ll need to be a big catch up.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 12/04/2020 15:05

Also, unlike the plague, at least now we actually have some ideas about how to do something, which beats the hell out of not understanding anything at all about how the disease killing people works or how it's spreading.

isabellerossignol · 12/04/2020 15:05

I worded that badly, I meant people contracting TB a century ago, due to their working conditions. Not contracting Covid 19, which would clearly have been impossible!

StatisticallyChallenged · 12/04/2020 15:04

Governments do of course have ways to not technically force but economically pressure people back to work by cutting Covid related funding and so on, but doing so might be political suicide in any country that actually elects its leaders.

Given that we've re-elected the Conservatives after austerity, I'm not convinced it would be political suicide. The messaging would be everything, of course, but they're already making it fairly clear that the economic effects are huge. Amongst people I talk to in real life most are rapidly moving to a "but the economy is fuuuucked" view too. Getting to the end of the current furlough scheme and saying "ok, lockdown is off and most people can go back to work. We'll continue to pay furlough for businesses which are required to close and for those in the shielding group" for example...I don't think would be all that damaging.

isabellerossignol · 12/04/2020 15:03

Just to point out before I go any further, I am not in any way suggesting that people should just suck it up and get on with things. But I was thinking about how the risk of deadly illness as a result of everyday life used to be just...normal. I know Covid 19 is more easily transmitted than something like TB for example, but we do know that a century ago it was well known that certain groups in society (eg those who worked in crowded conditions) were at much higher risk of contracting it. I think that as critical as we may be of how the government have handled this, they are at least trying to do something. Whereas a century ago the idea that the poor, in particular, might be able to avoid crowded places for a few weeks to try to stop the spread of disease would have been considered laughable.