Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

How can the UK gov or anyone read this and not put the UK on lockdown?

280 replies

UnderReview · 09/03/2020 17:29

The NHS won't. and shouldn't have to, cope with this...

Travel should have been stopped. Borders closed. People put in to lockdown.

ICU Doctor from Italy on current situation

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
mindproject · 09/03/2020 19:37

I think the economy is going to tank anyway. Sorry.

ElderAve · 09/03/2020 19:38

That's simply not true @alloutoffucks, the resultant austerity from the last financial crisis killed 1000s. Depending what research you look at it could even be as many as half a million

jasjas1973 · 09/03/2020 19:40

I would prefer to give up freedom temporarily to avoid the ghastly scenario of people dying in their millions

Millions? thousands perhaps.... anyhow Johnson is tempted to take CV19 "On the chin" and let it go through society.

BJ said he'd get Social Care Done and Patel bared any new care workers coming to the UK.... now we how and why.....

milveycrohn · 09/03/2020 19:41

@alloutoffucks. That is why a total lockdown is not practical at present, because if we do this now, it will have to last possibly for months.
Most people are still going to work. However, I think we can all avoid unnecessary travel.
I have definitely postponed my (not booked) holiday to Italy (duh!).
SHould they ban flights to or from any of the red zones?
Well, I am not sure, most people like me, will probably have postponed their holiday to Italy, especially as everywhere is shut. Those returning from places such as Italy, may try and find other means of travel.
The Gov said they were not checking temperatures at airports, because it was not found to be effective.
Personally, I would like to see more facilities for hand washing, and hand santisers around.
Otherwise, I do not know what the answer is.

ChibiTotoro · 09/03/2020 19:42

@alloutoffucks I have no idea if that is the case, but people still died regardless as a result of the lockdown.

Greysparkles · 09/03/2020 19:43

Everyone saying "lockdown"
What does it mean?

Locked in your house, or just limited to your own towns? Will roads be closed?
Will shops be forced to close? Large supermarkets and small independents?
Petrol stations?
Who decides what people aren't on "lockdown"
Doctors, teachers, carers, cleaners, food delivery persons, power plant operatives, water plant operatives, emergency services, warehouse staff (esp in food industry), workers at the docks, lorry drivers.

I could go on all day with these. "Lockdown" to me doesn't seem so simple, and those shouting about it don't seem to realise this, and all this is without the fact that most people like me would lose their jobs and homes if they couldn't work for a month. It's not as simple as "saving the economy over saving lives" the two go hand in hand

ListeningQuietly · 09/03/2020 19:43

(a) What is a Lockdown?

(b) Where is the evidence that immunity is not conferred on those who have recovered?

AlternativePerspective · 09/03/2020 19:44

People do not get immunity once infected bullshit. The one case which was alleged to have tested positive after recovery has since been disproven. And by that token, lockdown would achieve nothing because after two weeks all those who had recovered would be back out there and lockdown would have ended so nothing would have been achieved.

An expert on BBC was saying last week that actually we do need a proportion of society to catch it so that herd immunity is developed.

Interesting that people are saying how a bit of a hit to the economy is a small price to pay given we’ve only had three deaths out of a population of 60 million, and yet when Brexit was happening those same people were talking about how Brexit was going to destroy the economy.

Some of the measures people want putting in place here will be far more detrimental to the economy than Brexit ever would.

And all the “clearly you don’t care if people die” rhetoric is just guilt-tripping bollocks.

Of course people care about people dying. But people die all the time, of cancer, of lung disease, of various other environmental conditions. Presumably if you drive a car you don’t care about people dying of cancer given you’re happily throwing out fumes into the environment.

apricotnuts · 09/03/2020 19:46

I found the interview with ex MP Rory Stewart, Mayor of London candidate, by Shelagh Fogerty on her LBC radio show this afternoon was interesting. It starts at 1 hr 54 mins into the show.

He believes our government are not acting fast enough and if it was him he would be closing schools down now and shutting down any large gatherings. So he isn’t advocating wholesale lockdown yet but thinks the govt should be further ahead in their action plan. He says it will cost us a lot but it’s here and the cost is coming so better do it now where there is more chance of delaying the spread.

ListeningQuietly · 09/03/2020 19:48

Shutting down the schools
Could somebody explain how this would work

larrygrylls · 09/03/2020 19:48

Jasjas,

You are trying to score political points rather than looking at the facts. Tha approximate ratio of serious to mild cases is around 1:5. If 10% of the population were simultaneously infected, that would be 7 min infected and around 1.4mio serious cases. Can we treat that many in hospital, let alone an ICU?

And if we then assume that, without treatment 1/2 of the serous cases die....well, you do the maths.

Northern Italy’s hospitals are already becoming overwhelmed with total cases under 10,000 and serious infections in the high hundreds.

We need to understand what the epidemiologists are telling us and get ahead of the curve.

MimiLaRue · 09/03/2020 19:49

@AlternativePerspective

Well said! There was ONE case of a woman who "appeared" to catch the virus twice but on examination, scientists disproved this to be the case so this panic about people having no immunity is complete rubbish.

Honestly, at this point I am beginning to think people are almost enjoying whipping up hysteria about this. People are posting all sorts of OTT nonsense, none of which is backed up with medical facts.

AngelicaKauffman · 09/03/2020 19:49

Don't vote for conservative governments and moan about "communist" corbyn and then complain when said government prioritises the economy peoples' lives.

MulaDd1 · 09/03/2020 19:49

Assuming the numbers are correct in relation to infection. Would county lock down not help at this point? Some counties have zero cases according to the data, some obviously have a lot more than reported. If people were asked to keep to themselves as much as possible, stay in their own towns/counties. Legislation introduced to protect jobs, those not able to get to work can volunteer for their wage in the nhs or other necessary sectors. This could never happen as people are ridiculously selfish and it couldn’t be policed but it could help...

bmbonanza · 09/03/2020 19:51

Simple things like cancelling football matches, concerts etc that are mass groups of people in proximity would be sensible and have minimal real impact on life.

AngelicaKauffman · 09/03/2020 19:51

At some point we have to choose between saving lives and preserving freedoms. I would prefer to give up freedom temporarily to avoid the ghastly scenario of people dying in their millions

Giving up freedoms would tank the economy. Most people care more about money than anything else.

youkiddingme · 09/03/2020 19:52

Ok, am I reading this right?
According to the graph (www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-age-older-people-higher-risk-2020-2?r=US&IR=T) the mortality rate for people aged 10 to 39 is 0.2%.

Everyone is saying this is a disease of older people and I can certainly see how frighteningly high it gets for the older end. But 0.2% is still about twice the mortality rate of normal flu from what I've read.
So is this because there are a lot of people who of all ages who have underlying health conditions?
Or it it actually implying that twice as many young people could actually die of this as people die of the flu and a heck of a lot more older people could die - if it spreads as much as flu?
Genuine question, I'm just not clear on this.

SaltLampBae · 09/03/2020 19:53

I don't know why they don't say you can keep your kids at home if you want, and should work from home if possible.

I can work from home - I do work from home 2 days a week; my job is exactly the same wherever I am. But my boss is convinced by Boris' 'take it on the chin' KCACO narrative.

I've seen plenty of SAHP saying they'd keep their child at home if it wasn't for the fines. Well, it's better to have 15 kids in a class rather than 30, right? So why don't they let them?

Surely anything is better than literally nothing. So why aren't they encouraging/ allowing people to take some action to negate spread, especially when this won't lead to mass negative societal outcomes (economy crash, no childcare for HCPs etc)?

EricaNernie · 09/03/2020 19:53

I believe in PHE's advice

EricaNernie · 09/03/2020 19:54

the majority of nhs staff no doubt are parents.
how would we cope if they didnt go into work?

todayisnottuesday · 09/03/2020 19:55

C) What scientists have now made it clear that the government is prioritising economy over people’s lives? What are their academic credentials to make that claim? Why should we believe their opinion over others?

D) Define 'all travel'

Don't hold your breath though...

frillseeking · 09/03/2020 19:55

I don't understand why so many people have decided to go against the WHO advice and medical professionals and have decided that this isn't a really serious concern? I can understand the idea that social media and the press like to create hype but what would the WHO have to benefit from that??

PointlessAddict · 09/03/2020 19:56

At some point we have to choose between saving lives and preserving freedoms. I would prefer to give up freedom temporarily to avoid the ghastly scenario of people dying in their millions

Well I agree that would be all very well if - and it’s a big if - those were the figures we were looking at. However I don’t think even the worst case scenario predicts that. But where is the tipping point? There’s a balance to be struck between causing economic meltdown, hardship, poverty to millions, implementing a totalitarian regime, and saving (probably already very vulnerable) lives. Where is that? A few thousand deaths? 10 thousand? A hundred thousand?

Ultimately to get the people to buy in to totalitarian and/or measures they will need to be convinced it’s worth it, or else they won’t comply, and you still have the virus spreading and then having to try and enforce compliance in an already stretched system.

todayisnottuesday · 09/03/2020 19:58

Ok, am I reading this right?

No, unless you are an epidemiologist or similar with sufficient evidence, research and professional judgement to show that sum would be in any way valid.

larrygrylls · 09/03/2020 19:59

The numbers are freely available.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

There are currently 47,000 active cases globally, of which 13% are serious/critical. The WHOs CMR estimate is 3.4%, but that is based on a small scale epidemic where all patients get hospital treatment.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.