Am AIBU to think Covid has changed us all?

[Daleksatemyshed]

I'm reading so many posts from people saying they're seeing their DH/DP's in a new light, and not for the better, people who are afraid to meet family, send their DC to school, just struggling with every day life to the point their MH is breaking down. Who would have thought a disease would do this to us?

The fact they chose to do that is just one example of how people don't give a stuff about the comfort or safety of others

No, you're right, but why should they?

People should care for their own comfort and safety, not expect others to change their behaviour to suit them.

If you don't want to be around ill mannered oiks, no problem, don't fly on that type of plane.

If you are so sensitive/vulnerable that you can't cope with people taking their masks off, then you need to stay at home yourself.

Hell is other people, twas ever thus.

I’m not convinced it has changed people, but it has highlighted some of the extremes in some individuals.

And along with anxious people there's the angry people, @NikeDeLaSwoosh you seem to fall into the second party. I respect your right to air your views but please remember some people have lost elderly parents and they are already sad enough, please don't dismiss the deaths of the old as if no consequence for their sake

It has truly divided people I think....

If you fall off a rock then you aren't going to feel guilty for making others ill

Did people ever feel guilty about passing on flu, or any other virus? Why is it only passing on Covid that matters?

I respect your right to air your views but please remember some people have lost elderly parents and they are already sad enough, please don't dismiss the deaths of the old as if no consequence for their sake

We simply don't have the luxury of this degree of sentimentality in the face of a pandemic.

With this virus, we have to make a choice between protecting the futures of a whole generation of children and young people, or giving the elderly a few more years of life.

We can't have both, and I fear the current strategy will ultimately give us the worst of all worlds, ie. neither.

When a person reaches the end of their life, they die. We really need to move towards a point where the death of an elderly relative isn't the terrible, desperate, life ruining event that it seems to have become these days.

We simply don't have the luxury of this degree of sentimentality in the face of a pandemic.

Yes we do. There is no need to suggest that we as a society are happy or willing to see the elderly shoved off their mortal coil before their time just so that children can go to school. It is not a zero sum game.

This is not a war, and there is no need for a hardened absence of compassion and care dressed up as a lack of “sentimentality” as if that was somehow desirable.

Yup agree, as I said earlier we need to have a sensible, non sentimental conversation about death as a society. To me that isn't a heartless thing. these are the kinds of things that medical ethicists grapple with every day and medical professionals have to make clinical, fact based non-sentimental decisions about every day - thinking NFR orders etc.

As an ICU nurse I've seen a lot of death and a lot of people who are unrealistic about it, and the fact that we can't save everybody especially those that are at the end of their life. That doesn't devalue the dying person or their life, or their relatives grieving.

It's not just the elderly though.

Only a very small number of those who does would have died within the year (maybe this winter flu season)

Plenty of others died who were living quite well with co morbidities or even with no underlying conditions.

The only reason we didn't have more deaths than the already horrendous amounts is because we locked down.

No ones life is worth less than another's

With this virus, we have to make a choice between protecting the futures of a whole generation of children and young people, or giving the elderly a few more years of life. This is an extremely concerning statement. It shows me how some people will happily let vulnerable people in our society go under the wagon because of a huge conflagration - it is not a choice between one or the other.

No one's life is worth less than another's
This.

BUT we do need to find a balance between meeting people's physical health and mental health needs, especially as we're looking at 'long Covid'.

Covid has changed me for the better I think. I've taken a good hard look at myself and realised that before Covic I used to sweat the small stuff and depended too much on other people for my happiness- too much people pleasing! I've become more self-reliant and appreciative of my immediate surroundings. Love spending time with OH and my children, really cherish the occasions I see or speak to friends or nice colleagues.

I used to worry a lot about several domineering/ prickly/ untrustworthy types at work or in my extended family. Since lockdown I've been able to distance myself from them. It's easier to be polite but firm in a video call and cut a conversation short than when you're actually stuck in a room with them and they just talk at you without any consideration.

People are more emboldened to criticise others in a nasty way.

I was out running the other day, running up one side of the road along the pavement. A couple were walking towards me on the other side of the road on the pavement. As I got closer, they crossed the road to effectively join the pavement a few metres in front of me, and the man shouted at me for not moving out of their way to give them social distance.

It's strange to think that we started 2020 with the idea of Be Kind and now we're at a place where it's acceptable to shout at people on the street.

If you don't want to be around ill mannered oiks, no problem, don't fly on that type of plane.

Sadly this is exactly their selfish mindset!

An alternative is that if everyone was community minded, then everyone could travel safely and calmly, but a few people spoil it for the rest.

Shame you can't see that.

In these conversations can posters remember that no person's life is expendable.
That many people who have underlying conditions and disabilities that make them at higher risk of dying of Covid, are not elderly and many are children.
That people with Learning Disabilities and complex needs have poorer health outcomes, because of inequalities in health provision.

This thread has a very dark underbelly, I guess when people talk about being changed by Covid...this is part of it. It is grim.

As for this...
We simply don't have the luxury of this degree of sentimentality in the face of a pandemic.
...I have no fucking words.

We don't live in Logan's Runand we don't have to sacrifice everyone's Nan to save the young.

Getting the virus under control with a fit for purpose test and trace system does both.

South Koreans are still going to nightclubs!

Because they didn't let the virus spread for months like we did and where it pops up they spot it with test and trace and the infection is not allowed to spread.

We could've done that.

We still could.

Or we can live like this for years and wave goodbye to thousands more of our grandparents.

I've been sleeping better ever since lockdown started - don't know why. I enjoyed the first few weeks, when there was no pressure to do anything and I did lots of jigsaws and watched television for the first time in years. Now that things are getting back to 'normal' I'm wishing I could have my old life back. But I don't think it will happen, so maybe I'll just have to accept spending more time at home. I'm not looking forward to the winter when I can't get out in the garden so much.

@itsgettingweird

It's not just the elderly though.

Only a very small number of those who does would have died within the year (maybe this winter flu season)

Plenty of others died who were living quite well with co morbidities or even with no underlying conditions.

The only reason we didn't have more deaths than the already horrendous amounts is because we locked down.

No ones life is worth less than another's

This is the type of grown up conversation we need to have.

Utilitarianism is currently viewed as being cold and heartless. There is a famous thought experiment called the Trolley problem and posts like this make me think you’ve never encountered it or thought in any depth about how you sometimes only achieve the greater good by making a decision that causes some, but less, harm

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If you had to chose who would die between an 85 year old with comorbidities and a healthy 16 year old...would you find that hard?

No, it hasnt change us. Its changed the way we lead our lives at the moment, but it hasn't changed us.

I think some like to think those who are still social distancing, wearing masks and being careful are living their lives in fear, when that really isn't the case, it's just small changes for now.

Health professionals make those sorts of decisions on a daily basis when it comes to transplants or certain treatments.

Age and general health is certainly a factor then.

If a 5 year old needed a heart transplant would it go to an 80 year old? of course it wouldn't.

The trouble with these sort of arguments (Trolley Problem based ones that is...) is that they create a situations where we face a binary choice with two heinous outcomes, and they fall down a rabbit hole of caveats and conditions....eg "what if the 5 year old has a potentially life limiting condition?"
They also don't seem to take into account the vast complexities of an unequal society, and the reasons why we're in a situation where the trolley (ie the pandemic) is going to potentially kill several people (ie 40,000ish people) when the trolley in different hands may not have got itself into quite as dire a situation in the first place.

The other trouble with arguments about the relative value of one life balanced against another or several others is that they usually end up in trying to ascertain the merit of one life against another
Old v young?
Able bodied v disabled?
Obese v skinny?
Happy v unhappy?
Richly v poor?
...who gets to decide which?

I'm not sure that I've changed , just that I realise I am more of an introvert than I thought I was . I have been quite content to work from home , just chatting to colleagues via social media or teams . Content just with DH for company which has surprised me,
Although I love to see DS when he visits , and occasionally friends .

I was also quite content with going for walks and picnics as activities but have equally been happy to resume other activities, mainly going out to eat, I don't particularly enjoy shopping .

I think I've got quite lazy though , I used to pack a lot more into my day

I think it's going to be harder to balance things in the winter though when it's no longer pleasant to meet with people outside, decisions as to whether to do indoor activities or not if there are rising case numbers will not be easy .

@Bupkis you put that beautifully, thank you. There are lots of people in our society who would be more lightly to be killed by Covid, shall we herd them all together and write them off? Once we've disposed of them shall we forget all compassion? Yes, hard choices have to be made sometimes and @Vintagevixen has experienced that and has the right to say so but there's a big difference between making a hard choice over an individuals life and writing off a big section of society. If Covid has proved one thing it's the old saying that civilization is only a veneer and it's soon the survival of the fittest

We wouldn't be writing off a whole section of society though - we can still shield the vulnerable/elderly. I don't think anyone is advocating a bonfire of the vulnerable. Merely pointing out that Covid, rather like death, is ageist.

The idea of locking down the healthy was IMO always mad and I do think we should be allowing the young/less clinically at risk to resume a normal life (with caveats if in a multi generational household, working with vulnerable groups etc.) As I say I was always more a fan of the Swedish approach, though they got it wrong on care homes like we did.

@Vintagevixen
I agree with your earlier post, about the difficult decisions that have to be made, as an icu nurse.. by medical professionals and families.
When my mum was in icu in June I was overwhelmed by the sensitivity of the Drs and nurses, in having just such a conversation, about switching off her life support.
It was a painful and difficult thing to do, on my own, after my mum had been rushed into hospital that morning ...my first 'trip out' in 2 months after shielding my son.

The thing is, these decisions are made every day, by individuals and families with medical teams...but when those kinds of decisions are made on a national scale in the context of a public health crisis like a pandemic, then we have to be worried and cautious.

For a start, who is making those decisions?..the Drs?.... Sage? ...The Chief Medical Officers?... Dominic Cummings?? On what basis are they making those decisions?...the greater good?....the economy?....schools going back? How are they making those decisions..and can/will the mechanisms to allow those decisions to be made, be changed when the crisis is over?

I agree, that is the route that Sweden decided upon, but I disagree that care homes was the only area where they failed....I think their attitude was based on placing responsibility for curbing the spread of Covid solely on to individuals, but that isnt how it should be in a public health crisis...individuals do not have equal access to the means to protect themselves from covid and individuals are not at equal risk from the covid ie the poorest and most vulnerable in society suffered far more....and all those excess deaths were in vain, they have not succeeded in their aim of herd immunity.

I am obviously influenced in my feelings on this by the fact I am mum to a medically vulnerable person, who has underlying conditions, who was shielded, and who at only 10 years old, I probably am a bit sentimental about, when it comes to dying.

I read several articles and there is a lot of chat in the scientific community about Sweden being very near herd immunity. In fact Sweden now has a positive test rate of 12 per 100,000 of population which is well below the government limit of 20 per 100,000 over which quarantine upon return is necessary. They haven't taken it off the quarantine list though! suggesting they don't even want to admit they could've been wrong.

Also I think it was actually very much a collective effort - swedes followed the govt instructions with lots of social distancing, WFH but they kept schools mostly open and lots of non essential businesses.

As a fellow mum of course I understand your feelings, we worry about our kids even in non pandemic times! Particularly if they are more vulnerable - FWIW my friend has a medically vulnerable 12 year old, they got Covid early April - her immunocompromised son brushed it off, my poor friend was the worst affected and is still suffering long Covid despite being the healthy one.