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?

There has been a reduction in pollution due to the lockdown, which is the opposite of accepting death.

We are approaching a population of 8 billion. 200 years ago it was 1 billion, and humans dominated the planet.

Thanks @DCOkeford - I wrote my post before reading any of yours, and thought I'd be heckled out of here.

Maybe this will teach is that the world needs an annual lockdown, with or without a virus, to slow us down and limit pollution/ environmental damage.

I hope it will teach us that we need more sensible ways of living, not necessarily a lockdown, but better distribution networks, better disaster planning, less intense resource use.

I do think that we have a massive problem with 'accepting death' in our society. Especially in old age. I am 50 and have filled in an Advanced Directive refusing treatment if i don't have a specific quality of life/ autonomy over my life.

Anyway veering off topic now.

All animals try to avoid death. It’s part of natural selection.

I don’t think you can approach this from a utilitarian point of view. To be very blunt utilitarianism has no place in a civilised society and should be left behind in the era of nazi Germany/soviet Russia were it belongs.

We are balancing competing interests here (the protection of the vulnerable vs the liberty and prosperity of everybody else) while also attempting to manage the situation practically (if we didn’t have any lock down measures at all everything would go tits up very quickly). You can’t just say that the economic impact is expect to cost x life years vs saving y life years. Or the negative impact will harm x while only y will really benefit. We will all die one day, when we die is fairly immaterial, how we live is what counts. This kind of empirical utilitarian approach is an attempt to abdicate the duty to take a moral stance and follow through.

@Nameofchanges that’s not true, think of spiders or the praying mantis.

DCOkeford Do you have any loved ones in their late 60s/early 70s? You think it's fine for them to be carried off now by the virus? The majority of people in this age bracket are nowhere near death's door. Why should my fit and active 70 year old parents have to die now when all the indications are they have a good 10-15 years left, playing an active part in their children and grandchildren's lives?

There has to be a balance between egalitarianism and utilitarianism, there is space for both within a civilised society.

An staunch egalitarian would let the otherwise healthy 20 year old die and try and save the 80 year old chain smoker with COPD and a BMI of 45 get the ventilator. Because they were equal and need to be treated the same, right? No. They are equal but they are not the same. So doctors generally chose the otherwise healthy 20 year old, right? And as a result the ventilator is free more quickly for the next patient. The egalitarian doctor loses 1 patient and the utilitarian doctor saves 3 lives. Both use the ventilator for the amount of time,

Our governments have to make greatest good decisions all the time. Education requirements, vaccination programmes, food allergy legislation, smoking bans In public places/cars with children etc. Their are decisions based all the time on who dies and who lives and who is helped and who isn't, we just don't have to stomach them, out of sight out of mind.

Utilitarianism is how species survive. Ours and most others on the planet. It's whether the decision is short term or long term, covid 19 vs the economy that people aren't sure on. I think we all know someone somewhere will be sacrificed, that something has to be prioritised, for the greater good.

Nobody is treated as equal. Not really

I don’t think it is about equality.

It is about us avoiding falling into a state of inhumanity where within a short time period millions of people who require hospitalisation are left to die or endure trauma for weeks because we don’t have the resources to help them, or deal with their corpses, and the horrifying memories the rest of society would be left with.

It’s less about treating everyone the same and more about what we collectively consider the lowest standard of social response we are prepared to accept.

@Nameofchanges

Yes we need to have a balance between egalitarianism and utilitarianism I don't think we are disagreeing with each other really

Was speaking to someone in China today, and apparently they are seeing re-infections, to the extent that landlords are throwing out tenants who have been infected, because they expect them to get infected again. And employers are sacking staff who have had the virus. Not sure where the truth lies, but it's concerning.

It was inevitable that it would start back up again.

I don't believe that they had so few cases out there either. I've read reports alleging millions of inactive mobile phones in China and no one knows what's happened to the owners - I wonder if any humanitarian organisation can verify it?

Anothermurkyday, yes, not a disagreement, just people approaching the situation with slightly different perspectives.

That’s all very well saving lives by lockdown, the problem is there isn’t an exit plan, the lives you save today may die in 3,6 months time. How long can you do lockdown for? Governments are making choices who live and who dies from lockdown. India has 800 million poor, they are in lockdown for 21 days, how many will die of starvation? I bet the government have an idea.

Hasn’t this been explained over and over again? Lockdown reduces the infection rate so that a greater number of people can be treated.

Yes, and that would have been a really good strategy alongside track and trace testing, about 3-4 weeks ago.

It's interesting that some people think we should just ignore those epidemiologists who specialise in communicable disease. I think we should trust that if they say the NHS would become overwhelmed at X point (overwhelmed being the point at which people die who would otherwise survive) then we should take measures to prevent that from happening. Viral load killing otherwise healthy people is also a massive concern if mass infection were allowed to continue unchecked. "Stay safe" also means "our doctors are asking us to try not to catch it right now, try not to catch it" and "hopefully better treatment options are found before you catch it" and "if you're vulnerable let's hope you avoid this until there's a vaccine". Having faith in and respect for our scientists will bring far more of us through this.

Regarding the economy, I work just as much from home right now. So do colleagues and friends in India, the USA, even in Italy. A lot of the global economy has been slowed down, but it has not entirely stopped and I will continue to work and pay taxes throughout if possible. Meanwhile the effect of humans on the climate can be shown to everyone through the global isolation and I have great hope for a resulting expansion in climate friendly policies and industry when we come out the other side. Working from home instead of commuting and video-conferencing instead of flying won't seem so difficult for many companies to countenance after this. Taxes will have to go up, many savings will have taken a hit (those pensioners who previous posters want to see die off will disproportionately feel that pain), but the global economy will pick itself up and continue.

It's scary to contemplate death, but in the UK we don't need to unnecessarily kill off anyone vulnerable. The impact on the economy is worrying, but some people are working and we will rebuild. There are stark realities in some countries that the most vulnerable could die untreated from covid, or could die from starvation through isolation and economic impact; that isn't the case in the UK so we shouldn't behave as though it is.

10 years from now, similar number of people will have died.

The overwhelming majority of those 'saved' from coronavirus will have died anyway of something else.

The only thing we have any control over is just how much of a financial catastrophe we leave our Grandchildren to clear up.

There are stark realities in some countries that the most vulnerable could die untreated from covid, or could die from starvation through isolation and economic impact; that isn't the case in the UK so we shouldn't behave as though it is.

It is the case in the UK - life expectancy is the first thing to fall in a recession.

FWIW, I do agree that a lot of white collar/professional roles can be carried out from home, job losses will be disproportionately distributed amongst the lower paid/blue collar workers.

We are not India

The exit plan will be something along the lines of

Get it under control, which depends on how well people behave now. That's each and everyone of us breaking the chain.
Get more ventilators in stock , to avoid breaking the nhs
It will depend on how soon any treatment becomes available
Get more testing kits and consider how much surveillance you are can deploy

Note those depends,,,.thats why nothing can be written now except in vague terms. I can't give dates as we don't know how many idiots are still just catching up with friends, standing to close, going out when ill

But note that the harder we act now, the shorter the whole thing will be

Then gradually ease restrictions, using a strong test and contact trace approach to contain any flare ups , reiterating to lockdown again if it goes wrong.

The more draconian you are on surveillance, the faster you can release, but that's traded against civil liberties in other ways. Like you can stay at home longer or we all agree that the government can track our every movement and identify every person we have contact with.

International travel is likely to be the last thing to go back to normal because many countries may not get it under control at all ..so that might be restricted until vaccinations.

Exit plan in brief.

When I die, certainly matters to me!
I will do everything in my power to prevent my family from getting this. I do understand and agree that if a doctor is faced with the stark choice of saving a young person, with all their life ahead of them or an elderly person, whose chances of survival are lower, then it is 'right' to save the younger one. But I would prefer near total shutdown and fuck the economy, if it meant fewer people got this and died. The economy can be rebuilt, but dead is dead.

But note that the harder we act now, the shorter the whole thing will be

The better we lockdown, the longer it will on.

That is the whole point of lockdown.