Vulnerable children locked up in flats, deep recession, mental health eroded a future generation screwed

[Borkins]

I hope it flattens that curve. I hope it saves lives. Because huge sacrifices are being made.

Which country has rioting because of this virus? Have I missed something in the news?

It hasn’t happened.

I’m speculating what might happen if we have hundreds of thousands of deaths and a non functioning health service. I’m also suggesting that it’s likely in those circs we’d have severely disrupted essential services, food supply, etc,

I just did the sums. Based on UK population, assuming no measures taken to halt the spread, 80% get it (sounds high, but that’s what’s been bandied around), 0.4% death rate, that’s more than 2 million deaths.

And that’s assuming functioning healthcare. Which we wouldn’t have at that point.

My Facebook is full of, Just Stay Home it's simple slogans and patronising bullshit.
Simple slogans and patronising bullshit are Facebook staples at the best of times. People brainlessly share memes without realising what they are actually about. I'd stay away from it and connect with people who actually engage their brain.

If it runs rampage and many older people die it's actually giving them less debt - less pensions to pay. They are unlikely to lose their parents. Their grandparents can self isolate for a few years if they want to, as can anyone else vulnerable. We agree as a society to fund that. Everyone else keeps going. Meanwhile we research vaccines and a cure.

People need to remember that there’s no fucking way governments would impose this much disruption to their economies if they saw any other workable course of action.

They’re all obsessed with economic growth.

Don't think we don't risk severe disruption to food supplies through these waves of lockdown, isolation between countries, economic depression btw. Look at the 1930s to see what that looks like.

Even governments are irrational at times(all the time?) This is one of those times. Reacting rather than analysing. Plus, scared of telling old people (their voting base) that there isn't much they can do. What government wants to admit that? So we get show lockdown instead

They are unlikely to lose their parents.

You are totally naive if you think this is the case.

Mortality rates above the age of 10 are not zero. Multiply that up to population figures and the numbers get very scary very quickly.

And mortality rate predictions currently are based on ventilators available and trained healthcare staff ready to go. When it gets to those numbers they won’t be.

10% of those killed by this virus in Italy were healthcare workers. Think about the implications of that.

Look at the stats. They are unlikely to lose their parents.

Look at the stats. They are unlikely to lose their parents

0.2% (11,800) of infected 10-19 year olds will die
0.2% (11,800) of infected 20-29 year olds will die
0.2 (11,800) of infected 30-39 year olds will die
0.4% (23,600) of infected 40-49 year olds will die.

They're unlikely to lose their parents, yes. But many will.

Don't think we don't risk severe disruption to food supplies through these waves of lockdown, isolation between countries, economic depression btw.

Of course.

Now imagine what that starts to look like when death tolls rise and people know they can’t be treated, because there’s no equipment and dwindling staff.

Do you head out cheerily to your job in food production/distribution/retail everyday risking your life? I doubt it.

I totally agree btw that the numbers are scary, and a lot of people are going to die. A lot more people will die if we totally screw over our economies. No nhs then. No drugs. Look at a developing economy for future healthcare predictions.

They are unlikely to lose their parents.

Projected more than 2 million deaths in the UK. Some of them will.

Some of them already have.

I agree with the OP. Not all ‘vulnerable’ children are identified, there are lots who slip through the net. Not forgetting DV sufferers as well. This is coming at HUGE expense and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

I am personally okay with those stats for my age group and would rather take my chances and keep a functioning economy than totally fuck over all children's future (thus giving them a much shorter lifespan incidentally than the current boomers - how long did people born in 1910 live to?)

A lot more people will die if we totally screw over our economies.

The point that you appear to be missing is that the economy is screwed regardless.

Do you think it would be business as usual with 2 million deaths, collapsing healthcare, severely impacted essential services?

Of course not.

The absolute best thing we can do the economy is get this under control ASAP.

@TrainspottingWelsh everything you said! That should be on a billboard so the judgemental bastards can do one.

Ive already witnessed a DV incident in our street this morning. From what I could gather the woman is being made to sleep in her car, a baby lives in the flat with them. I’m expecting more trouble over the period as there’s another neighbour of mine with ongoing issues too. The police response is usually very casual and I fear it will be even worse now they are spending their time blocking roads and telling kids to go home. I’m not against the lock down, But It’s families like this I’m terrified for. Also all those old folk not dying of CV who will be lonely as hell in their final few weeks and months.

If we shut down the economy for too long we won't have the funds for the nhs or anything else. Most are net takers as it is. Of course, in many cases the biggest contributors are only in that position because they pay their workforce a pittance. But we also rely on the revenue generated by businesses and industries that are currently out of action.

the health service collapses

What does that even mean?
If no measures were taken to contain this virus, it would run through in what? Six weeks? Taking 600,000 people with it? If that were the case most of them would never have had a single bit of contact with the NHS, it would be overwhelmed, but only for six weeks. Would it then return to normal? Except minus an awful lot of very elderly or sick people it was previously providing long term care for. Alternatively we can 'flatten the curve' prolong the amount of time the NHS is under enormous pressure and is no longer a National Health Service and is instead a National Coronavirus Service. I'm not sure the second opinion is the better one for the NHS.

I'm not advocating the first option btw, I'm just challenging the 'protect the NHS' mantra.

But Laurie there is no cost-free option here (and I’m using that in its widest sense of the word not just economically). Bad things are going to happen regardless. What we need to objectively and dispassionately decide is what is the best approach for the greater good. That’s what is needed rather than this “you’re killing my granny if you take you dog out for 2 walks a day” rants.

Interesting post @KenDodd.

Do we want our ICU capacity running at max for months helping keep COVID victims alive at the expense of cancer patients, heart attacks?

But we also rely on the revenue generated by businesses and industries that are currently out of action.

Sure. Equally they rely on a functioning society were essential services are working (including healthcare) to function. It’s symbiotic.

I totally agree that we can’t go into lockdown forever. But the best thing to do right now is do it right, so it’s as short as possible and the impact on everyone is minimised as far as it can be.

But Laurie there is no cost-free option here (and I’m using that in its widest sense of the word not just economically). Bad things are going to happen regardless

There absolutely isn’t. Where have I suggested that?

What we need to objectively and dispassionately decide is what is the best approach for the greater good.

I agree. I just don’t think people really understand the impact of 2million deaths (including healthy young people), collapsed healthcare system, collapsed public services on the ‘greater good’.

Pretty much everyone is fucked in that scenario.

Some absolutely bizarre analysis on here completely underestimating the impact of a huge number of deaths in a short space of time. Everyone would be affected in this case! Bodies in houses for god knows how long. Societal collapse. That's not an exaggeration, thats just what happens when a couple of million people die in a couple of months. I can't believe that's anyone's preferred option?! Plus the death rate is around 1% or less WITH TREATMENT. All the younger people that need treatment will not be getting it in the nightmare scenario that MN apparently prefers. So up that death rate to 10% + and see how fun that is. Mental. No concept of consequences.

Have you tried suggesting to her that she decorate a room or do some yoga to help her through, peapod?

Increases in DV, and I've heard likelihood of increase in child abuse including CSA, are by the by, as those people are having a bad time anyway. And, think of the war!

Nice.