Should we all lockdown again, infection rate is rising or should we shield the elderly and vunerable and support them financially while everyone else goes back to normality to save our economy.

[947EliseChalotte]

Covid is not going to disappear, we will be waiting years for a vaccine. How on earth are we / the economy suppose to carry on like this ?
Yabu I'm being unreasonable
Yanbu I'm being reasonable

I have a friend - a formerly fit, healthy, social worker friend who caught it in March. She wasn’t hospitalised with it, but she has been hospitalised twice since as she’s developed problems associated with it. She’s hoping to do a phased return to work from September and in the meantime is having physio and taking drugs to help her improve. At the moment I think we have to do what we can to get back to work provided it’s safe to do so. I’m working on my lounge and although I far prefer going into the office, practically it’s better for me and my employer if I don’t. Once kids go back to school in September, forming ‘bubbles’ of 100 people, we may as well be running round naked licking people. I’ll be happier once we have a vaccine.

got had a post deleted a month ago suggesting the vulnerable should stay at home and everyone else gets back to it - glad to see general thinking is moving on this issue
Well my dh would happily work from home but 15% of extremely clinically vulnerable have kids under 16 who will have to attend school or the the parents will be fined so how is that going to work?

@notangelinajolie

Lock up the young and let the oldies out. They have way more money to be spending in shops and restaurants.

Unfortunately, I think this comment is spot on.

I'd also add that the 'oldies' are far more likely to vote, and far more likely to vote Conservative.

@user1471500037

I got had a post deleted a month ago suggesting the vulnerable should stay at home and everyone else gets back to it - glad to see general thinking is moving on this issue

This admittedly uncomfortable reality will hit society at some point.

The amount of time taken between now and that point will be the determinant of how much damage we do in the meantime.

@user1471500037

I got had a post deleted a month ago suggesting the vulnerable should stay at home and everyone else gets back to it - glad to see general thinking is moving on this issue

What makes you think it is "general thinking"?! It could just be the view of a few psychopaths for all you know.

If the 'vast majority' of the public support the current restrictions of liberty, why did they need the backing of legislation?

Surely if the majority of people believe it to be a good idea, compliance would have just happened by itself?

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

If the 'vast majority' of the public support the current restrictions of liberty, why did they need the backing of legislation?

Surely if the majority of people believe it to be a good idea, compliance would have just happened by itself?

The majority think the drink driving laws are a good idea, but we still need legislation. The majority think the murder laws are a good idea etc etc.

We need legislation so that the idiotic minority can be punished for doing things the majority don't want them to do.

The problem is the "idiotic minority" (if MN is s microcosm of the macrocosm and doesn't contain more idiots than the general public at large) seems to be becoming less of a minority with each day that passes!

As long as the 'idiot minority' remain a small minority, then the effects of the deprivation of liberty will still be felt. The original planning allowed for a relatively high degree of non-compliance.

My point is, people who oppose the restrictions, for whatever reason, are not a tiny minority.

The assertion that the vast majority of the population support the current policy simply isn't borne out by the facts.

The comparison with driving with excess alcohol is just yet another logical fallacy. A death caused by a drink driver requires only one person to have broken the law at a single point in time for the negative outcome to have occurred.

There needs to be a fairly high degree of non-compliance with the law over a sustained period of time for the Coronavirus legislation to fail to meet its objectives.

The two are in no way comparable, and FWIW, there is a very high degree of compliance with Drink Driving legislation, with very few (if any) people arguing against it.

The two are in no way comparable, and FWIW, there is a very high degree of compliance with Drink Driving legislation, with very few (if any) people arguing against it.

I think it's very comparable .There may be a high degree of compliance with drink driving legislation nowadays but there certainly wasn't in the 70s. A significant minority thought they could drive after a few pints and disagreed with the fact that it was illegal to do so. There was also a lot of protest when it became illegal to drive without a seatbelt.

The assertion that the vast majority of the population support the current policy simply isn't borne out by the facts.

In your social bubble and on SM maybe. But outside in the real world, most people are compliant and in agreement. In the shops I go into, nearly everyone is wearing masks. Talking to friends, family, neighbours, etc., most are following the guidance re social distancing, not socialising in large groups, etc and they're willing to do that for the bigger picture, i.e. to protect people against catching covid.

I think it's another case like how if you only ever looked at SM, you'd think Corbyn would have won the last GE by a landslide as nearly everyone was pro Corbyn and anti Boris. But out in real life, most people said the opposite, and the GE proved that!

@Badbadbunny

The assertion that the vast majority of the population support the current policy simply isn't borne out by the facts.

In your social bubble and on SM maybe. But outside in the real world, most people are compliant and in agreement. In the shops I go into, nearly everyone is wearing masks. Talking to friends, family, neighbours, etc., most are following the guidance re social distancing, not socialising in large groups, etc and they're willing to do that for the bigger picture, i.e. to protect people against catching covid.

I think it's another case like how if you only ever looked at SM, you'd think Corbyn would have won the last GE by a landslide as nearly everyone was pro Corbyn and anti Boris. But out in real life, most people said the opposite, and the GE proved that!

So why the need for legislation?

...and FWIW, I think there is a huge incidence of 'Shy Tory' here - if you're talking to someone face to face, they are very unlikely to actually tell you that they care far more about their own livelihood and freedom than they do about wrestling another 6 months of life for a random care home resident that they don't know.

...and before everyone descends on me - I do understand that a very small number of young and healthy people have died from Covid, but this does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority if deaths have been in people who would have died in the next 12 months anyway.

The government's overarching objective has been to maintain existing power structures

@mrpumblechook

The two are in no way comparable, and FWIW, there is a very high degree of compliance with Drink Driving legislation, with very few (if any) people arguing against it.

I think it's very comparable .There may be a high degree of compliance with drink driving legislation nowadays but there certainly wasn't in the 70s. A significant minority thought they could drive after a few pints and disagreed with the fact that it was illegal to do so. There was also a lot of protest when it became illegal to drive without a seatbelt.

You may well think it is, but it still isn't.

Take for example the very sad drink drive accident at New Year at Heathrow. 3 people in their early 20s killed in a single incident.

Assuming average life expectancy of 80, that makes a total of 120 life years lost in that one awful accident.

Furthermore, there is a clear, unbroken chain of causation between the breach of the law (driving with excess alcohol) and the deaths.

Comparing that to the Covid situation, approx 150 care home residents would have to die to create a comparable loss (on the basis that the average life expectancy of a care home resident is 6-12 months following admission).

In any case, you could never prove an unbroken chain of causation between a single breach of the Coronavirus legislation and all 150 of those individual deaths.

With respect, the two are not comparable hence you are wrong.

Correction.

That's 180 life years lost in the Heathrow accident, which would mean well more than 200 care home residents to make a comparable loss.

I know it sounds harsh to look at the issues in this objective manner, but the removal of people's liberty is such an enormous thing that we really do need to look at it in the cold light of day.

Take for example the very sad drink drive accident at New Year at Heathrow. 3 people in their early 20s killed in a single incident.

You can't take one instance of drink driving leading to deaths of people and extrapolate that to mean every incident leads to that many deaths. There are probably people who drink and drive all the time without having an accident and overall it may not be any more dangerous on average than not self isolating with coronavirus. There are probably cases where "super spreaders" of coronavirus have infected a lot of people and that could have lead to as many deaths for all we know.

I know it sounds harsh to look at the issues in this objective manner, but the removal of people's liberty is such an enormous thing that we really do need to look at it in the cold light of day.

People have never had the liberty to do exactly what they want if it affects other people and that includes infecting them because they think their liberty to do what they want is more important than other people's lives. You obviously have just never been aware of it. Typhoid Mary probably felt the same way.

People have never had the liberty to do exactly what they want if it affects other people and that includes infecting them...You obviously have just never been aware of it

Are you trying to suggest that we have always been subject to the current levels of restriction, but I have just somehow been unaware of it?

Go on then, show me one other instance in which (to all intents and purposes) the whole of society has been ordered to stay at home for fear of infecting people with a disease?

You can't take one instance of drink driving leading to deaths of people and extrapolate that to mean every incident leads to that many deaths

Neither can you take one instance of Norman at number 42 not wearing a face mask in Tesco's and extrapolate from that that he is directly responsible for north of 200 Covid deaths.

I'm slightly confused by your argument here, as that is precisely my point - the two pieces of legislation are completely different.

Are you trying to suggest that we have always been subject to the current levels of restriction, but I have just somehow been unaware of it?

We haven't be subjected to the current level of restrictions because there hasn't been a need for it. We have never had a virus in circulation that is so contagious and with a relatively high rate of death or serious illness. The legislation has always been there though to be used if required. For example, people have been prosecuted for "reckless HIV transmission"

Neither can you take one instance of Norman at number 42 not wearing a face mask in Tesco's and extrapolate from that that he is directly responsible for north of 200 Covid deaths.

You are basing the 200 deaths on your assumption that everyone who dies of coronavirus would only have lived for a another 6 months anyway which is ridiculous. Many people are much younger and would have a normal life expectancy without the illness. If Norman at number 42 was knowingly infected with coronavirus and went out to Tesco without wearing a mask and infected 30 people and those people went on to infect others including young people with underlying conditions then he would be responsible for just as many life years lost as the drink driver at heathrow.

people have been prosecuted for reckless HIV transmission

This is in no way the same thing as people being forced by the State to stay in their houses to prevent the transmission of HIV and you know it.

You are basing the 200 deaths on your assumption that everyone who dies of coronavirus would only have lived for a another 6 months anyway which is ridiculous. Many people are much younger and would have a normal life expectancy without the illness

This is actually the view of Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter.

He said that on average, the risk of dying with Covid 19 is the same as that of you dying in the next 12 months of any cause.

The average life expectancy from admission to a care home is 6-12 months anyway, so I stand by my interpretation of his findings.

Take it up with him if you disagree.

Anyone under 50 back to normal unless underlying health issues. Over 50’s need to be a bit more careful so a bit more leeway.

This is in no way the same thing as people being forced by the State to stay in their houses to prevent the transmission of HIV and you know it.

There was no need to force people to stay in their houses to prevent transmission of HIV though. It doesn't mean that the legislation wasn't there.

Take it up with him if you disagree

Why?

You've made him sound so ignorant of even the basics of life expectancy and cancer, and a number of other conditions on the 'shield' list - particularly blood cancers (the commonest kind of cancer in children) that I think I would find it difficult to know where to start.

He's talking about the elderly and their life expectancy.

That is not/not a synonym for the exceptionally medically vulnerable (no age categories for shielded conditions) and it includes those who can expect a normal or near normal life expectancy.