This is what has always troubled me about total lockdown

[Makeitgoaway]

I don't understand how we get out of it.

Of course, it should reduce transmission while we're all locked down but unless the whole world has it under control, as soon as we start getting back to normal, it will all start again. As they're beginning to see in China.

Is this going to become a regular way of life, with lockdown annually or every few years?

The government will be mapping all these different scenarios and outcomes, they will be deciding who will live and die and the financial costs.

The overwhelming majority are elderly though...

Of the people being shielded is 1.5 million, the overwhelming majority are elderly? Is that correct? How many, do you know?

DCOkeford I asked you yesterday if any of your loved ones are in their 60s or 70s? Are they currently fit and well? Are you ok if they die 10-20 years earlier than they statistically would have done otherwise?

It's all very well to speak in a dispassionate way when you won't personally be affected.

Can someone clarify? I thought the 1.5 million were the very vulnerable, not including pensioners. Is this not the case?

Some people are just better at seeing the big picture in a more dispassionate way.

I have vulnerable family members. Most people probably do. They have chosen to self isolate which I am happy about, but I imagine they will get bored of it eventually. Their choice. I updated my will last month when it was clear the shit was going to hit the fan, and arranged a mutual deal to look after each other's kids with a friend, should one of us die. I am probably a bit at risk as I have had pneumonia before and have asthma. But thank God it isn't killing children in any statistically significant way so less worry for me personally.

People die. We will all die one day or another. It's a global pandemic and it's not going any time soon. My focus now is on how to mitigate the total economic meltdown that we seem hell bent on creating, acting behind the curve with measures that were suited to a month ago but are pretty pointless now. Isolate the elderly and vulnerable, protect them financially, let life continue as normal for everyone else (and those who choose not to self isolate).

I also don’t understand why there is talk of the vulnerable and victims of austerity as if they are opposing groups.

Austerity is one of the major reasons why I have health problems that put me in the vulnerable group in the first place.

My husband is high risk, I also have elderly parents, I don’t want my husband to get ill but on the other hand he won’t be furloughed, he will be made redundant on the 1st April with no pay, we will have live off my part time wage, we will only manage for a couple of months. We are not as bad as some people will be so there is a cost to juggle, not everyone will be looked after by the government, some people will fall between the cracks.

'Shielding' you will cost lives elsewhere. How do you feel about that?
@DCOkeford - that is a truly despicable thing to say to anyone, nobody in a functioning society should ever ask nor imply that another individual should sacrifice themselves for others. It is also once again reflecting your inaccurate understanding of basic maths and the current plan, because what you suggest isn't true. Shielding someone will not cost other people's lives, it affects just 1.5 million some of whom are elderly, are children, or are in receipt of sickness benefit; there is therefore a finite financial impact to shielding. Social distancing is what will reduce the economy and that is to protect everyone else who might otherwise die because there isn't an ability to give them basic antibiotics or oxygen, due to health services being overloaded. That is protecting otherwise healthy children, young adults and older adults as well as the elderly; because small percentages of every age group will need hospital care. Without social distancing we would also make it a near certainty that our health care professionals would die in their thousands due to excessive viral load. Young, otherwise healthy adults who are working to save people. Please educate yourself before you continue with this offensive gibberish you keep posting.

And by the way, encouraging those in their 70s who might need more hospital treatment to isolate themselves actually helps the rest of us, by freeing up health care professionals (finite number again) and medical supplies (again, a finite number) to look after younger people who need help. It is not solely the young protecting the old, it is ALL OF US doing our best to protect every last one of us.

Yes absolutely, self isolation for the vulnerable, well organised so they are as protected as possible. It has an economic cost but nothing like the cost of lockdown

There's a world of difference between 'being better at seeing the bigger picture in a more dispassionate way' and just thinking you do.

I've still not seen anything other than pure assertion that lockdown has worse 'economic effects' than not locking down so lockdown is 'stealing children's futures'. By the way, economic effects will be more than just asserted exchequer savings from state pensioners dying earlier which some PPS said was a good thing economically.

I didn't want lockdown and can see all the costs. I actually wanted testing and contact tracing months ago like South Korea and Singapore so HCPs and everyone else's lives weren't at risk.

But if we are where we are, I'm just also aware there are costs from not locking down but some PPs don't seem to want to factor in.

Now from my previous posts, I've said I don't see the world solely in economic terms. But even if you do, the elderly are not some undifferentiated mass of pension-receiving, unaffordable care-receiving people who will die anyway. In addition to what I've said previously, some of 'the elderly' have employment, some provide care to grandchildren and do other 'economic' activities. Radio 4 made the statement (I've not looked for the source) around 40,000 children have their grandparent as parent (presumably because their parent died or were unable to care for them). Even if only the elderly will die (which as some PPs have said is demonstrably untrue) I wonder what the economic effects of whatever proportion of those 40,000 become orphans?

@StirCrazed,
*
People die. We will all die one day or another. It's a global pandemic and it's not going any time soon. My focus now is on how to mitigate the total economic meltdown that we seem hell bent on creating, acting behind the curve with measures that were suited to a month ago but are pretty pointless now. Isolate the elderly and vulnerable, protect them financially, let life continue as normal for everyone else (and those who choose not to self isolate).*

Totally agree.

Self isolation is for people who have Coronavirus.

The very vulnerable have been told to shield.

The vulnerable have been told to practise extreme social distancing.

I was putting forward my suggestion, not stating what our useless government curre recommends, some of which goes against who recommendations eg isolation period after end of symptoms, lack of testing. I wouldn't trust my health or my family's health to govt advice - particularly as it hasn't worked great for them so far, has it? But you do you.

Okay. So why do you think self isolation is preferable to shielding?

Absolutely there are costs to both lockdown and not lockdown. It's not like there is one great option out there. I was in favour of short sharp lockdown with contact trace/test if we had done it (quite a bit) earlier. I'm actually incredibly pissed off that we are where we are, with crap equipment for the nhs, and an entirely predictable crisis fast approaching. We are still giving out crap advice and the lockdown is pathetic so I really give up on it not spreading like wildfire. I just think it's too late now for any benefits of lockdown to outweigh the disadvantages. That ship has sailed.

Agree, particularly in light of people flocking to places such as Snowdonia resulting in the highest numbers of visitors on record! We're locking down after there's already been mass transmission ie stable door, horse

I think 100’s of thousands if not millions have had it already. Destroying our economy and the mental health of our population is going to do more damage that the Coronavirus itself.

"I think 100’s of thousands if not millions have had it already."

It would be so useful to get the antibody test up and running - does anyone know where things are on this? I think I read that the tests the govt has bought are being quality control tested at the moment. Someone did ask a question about this at the press conference today but I can't remember if it was answered - the journalists ask two or three questions each and one gets missed!

What I understood was that lockdown was to delay a while so that time was created to get things ready, new hospitals, extra equipment, staff. And of course to reduce infected people spreading the virus to as many people as would with no lockdown.

Is no one concerned that whilst we are ‘locked down’ the government have introduced draconian measures which severely curtail our freedom, not to mention our human rights, long after the pandemic has been and gone.

Ive read a lot of dystopian fiction and feel like we are getting disturbingly close to it becoming reality.

You can't get immunity from a virus! Virus mutates. The flu jab is designed to stop one strain of flu but there are many strains and the vaccination doesn't stop you catching a different strain.

Ludo, of course you can have immunity from some viruses, how many people do you know who’ve had chicken pox twice?

You can’t have immunity from “flu” because flu is two large families of viruses but you can have immunity from individual strains and that can last for years. Coronavirus is too new for us to know for certain how much immunity will be granted after infection and for how long, but the best guess, extrapolating from experience with SARS and MERS is that it will be at least a few months. It might mutate but that doesn’t seem to be happening quickly.

You can't get immunity from a virus!

Course you can - chicken pox?

I've also heard scientists discussing immunity to COVID19 - the view currently is that we get immunity to other Corona viruses so there's no reason to think this will behave differently but until they do further testing they aren't 100%

Apparently in China people have been re-infected. That's what ordinary people in China are saying, anyway.