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?

So even the shielding of the vulnerable isn't intended to save lives/stop them getting seriously ill, it's just to try and avoid them all dying/getting ill at the same time?

With that knowledge how could they return to any sort of normal life?

Flattening the peak must save lives though, if it means more people can be successfully treated?

It does seem that some otherwise healthy people are becoming seriously ill but the numbers are thankfully small. I do wonder how many would have died within a fairly short timeframe anyway. I know about the spanish mortuaries but if everyone who would have died this year, dies in the same month, that's going to cause issues. As PP said it will be interesting to see how many "extra" deaths there are over the longer term.

The only person I know of IRL who has died(so far ) was a seriously ill elderly man whose death came as a relief to those who loved him. He'd been ill and in pain for a long time and wasn't expected to go on for much longer.

The economic effects do trouble me. We know that a depression will cost lives too. Who could say which lives should be saved? I also think the lockdown itself will cost lives, through increased DV, the lack of an effective way to safeguard at risk children and increased suicides, although I suppose there would also be a reduction to RTAs etc. Again, which lives are most important? (there's obviously no answer to that).

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

That isn’t actually true. The point of lockdown is to delay the spread. The better it works, the longer the whole thing goes on for.
The quickest way to get it over would be to let it ravage through the population and kill thousands of people quickly, before it dies out.
I am obviously not suggesting that is the appropriate method to take, I’ve just seen lots of people saying ‘the harder we lockdown, the quicker it will be all over’ and it’s just not true.

10 years most of them would have died anyway

How cruel

You can do a lot in 10 years of living

And most ? Perhaps two thirds?

Are you going to give up ten years of your life ?

And financially not doing anything does not prevent ecominic chaos.
A short hard shock may actually be easier to recover from than a lingering societal death

How do you think my mental health is coping with the fact that people would rather I die ? That You view me as an inconvience ? Hey let's cancel cancer treatment as well, and all social care

What kind of society would we be living in if most people thought like that?

The world has changed . You can't go back to last year.

So even the shielding of the vulnerable isn't intended to save lives/stop them getting seriously ill, it's just to try and avoid them all dying/getting ill at the same time?

It's likely that the current policy will extend the lives of some people in their 70s and 80s by a few years.

We're all going to have to catch it at some point though (at least 60%, I believe)

I'd also agree to more draconian measures. People are still socialising with friends and neighbours, going to beauty spots to 'get exercise'. I'd cull that allowance for a start - people can exercise at home if they really wanted to. We should be allowed out once a week to go food shopping and nothing else unless it's to get medicine or see a doctor. If we'd done this two weeks ago we'd be better off now.
I don't understand why the govt is still allowing people into the UK, apart from repatriation of citizens.

@Makeitgoaway - the most vulnerable need to be shielded until treatment or vaccination is there to help them. If people could in general be prevented from catching it there would be policies for that, but the containment strategy failed so all that is left is herd immunity with hopefully better treatment, death or a vaccine. There's a huge difference between letting people with mild asthma catch this over a long time period with good treatment versus shielding immuno-compromised individuals who doctors do not think they can save. The aim is for those very vulnerable people never to catch it at all.

Look, everyone wants to live forever - I do too, and nobody wants anybody dead.

The idea doesn't exist in a vacuum though, 'saving' one life here will result in a premature death elsewhere.

Its a big game of Whack-a-mole where we simply can't have what we all actually want (everyone living forever).

We cannot be led by blind sentimentality on this issue, difficult decisions have to be made and people need to have a think about whether they really do want this additional years of life when the cost to the next generations is so very high.

It is true. It's not just about slowing the spread, that's what the first stage, delay was about

This Is about breaking the chain of infection to stop it in its tracks

Currently one victim infects 2 or 3 others...exponential growth

Get that number below 1 and you have the opposite, the virus dies out

They have achieved that in China .

The economic and societal impact of it rampaging through society would be catastrophic and it would probably take 2 or 3 years to do that ( based on Spanish flu)

We expect a vaccine before that , so in both approaches the whole thing lasts the same time

@midgebabe - most of us would rather that you and anyone else vulnerable continue to live, and we are happy to keep restrictions up as long as it takes to ensure that you do. Try to remember that there are always selfish idiots whose opinion is better disregarded.

Get it out of your heads that the future generations are fucked up by this. It could well be the opportunity we need to change for the better. After all, Why should this be any different to any other catastrophe in the past?

We all know that society wasn't working well. Inequality rising, many people struggling to get by. The planet burning up . And that is still a much greater risk to my daughters future than a short economic hit.

We can make it better if we don't cling to the past.

The fact we are being super hospitals to take 10000 patients and recruited 600000 volunteers indicates lock down will end in 3 weeks, no?

MRex, containment didn't fail, it was always only intended to delay things. No one thought it could actually be contained in the long term.

I think the reason we have a "loose" lockdown atm is that "we" do still want some spread. The NHS is coping so far. As others have said, if we lock down harder, the overall timeframe increases. There's no need to do that until we get close to a point where the NHS cant cope. It won't change the number of people who get ill overall, just the number ill at any one time.

Thanks . And I see from RL how kind and supportive every single person I know is

It's just those some people don't even seem to realise that what they want is unachievable

@midgebabe but as soon as people come in from abroad it will start again, like China, lockdown won’t stop the virus, it just slows it down for now but as soon as lockdown ends it will start up again.

DCOk, I wonder if he realised he wasn't 63, he was really in his '70s to 80s 'and only had 'a few years left that weren't worth it anyway'?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52064450

He and similar HCP colleagues wouldn't have been performing any more transplants or surgical procedures in those 'few years' anyway.

Best not be sentimental. Or use logic and facts.

I wonder how the family of the 36 year old with three children felt? I bet she didn't realise she was in her 70s to 80s either.

I don't think I'll be commenting further.

Thanks for what midge?

People are just talking about the different ways this could play out. Whatever we do there are going to be a lot of deaths. We can't stop that, none of the current actions, or even stricter measures, can change that, they can only spread them out.

People may not get immunity....just like with the flu it may mutate and immunity won't be possible.

@Blewbell it may mutate but if you have immune system to Coronavirus at least your body will have some antibodies to it, at the moment, no one had this before last November.

These individual cases are really sad, I agree, but we can't make policy based on edge cases.

We have to act in the greatest good, for the majority of people and that unfortunately results in individual tragedies.

You can't 'save' everyone.

Yes seems like the reality until they come up with a vaccine that seems a long way off. Because if one country gets clear it only takes someone flying in from an infected country to start it all over again.
I'm very scared for me and my children life as we knew it is over

@midgebabe
The world has changed . You can't go back to last year.
If only .....
What have we learned from this crisis?
How are we going to change our behaviour?
Bear in mind there could be another 'new' virus popping up at any time in the future.
What coping mechanisms are we going to put in place?
Both nationally and individually,

DCOkeford

Not every one being shielded is in their 70s or 80s.

I'm 50. There are loads much younger, including children.

We don't deserve to live according to you?

I wonder how many more women will die because of DV and poverty, than coronavirus? Considering men are at a much higher risk of dying from the virus. The numbers will be interesting to see in 12 months time.

The overwhelming majority are elderly though...

Yes, there are a population of younger people, with underlying health issues, but we have to legislate for the majority.

'Shielding' you will cost lives elsewhere. How do you feel about that?

It troubles me that the government actively decided in 2017, against expert advice, NOT to buy the expensive PPE needed for this type of pandemic, in order to save money. Terrible.

So now we are in a situation where HCPs are being put at risk (and dying) to save lives, when they could have done it safely. But their lives weren't deemed valuable enough when planning for this.
This is a good enough reason for me to go into lockdown, as HCPs are being so unfairly impacted.

In WW1, millions of young men were sacrificed to gain economic power for their nations. I wonder what discussions were had at the time about the ethics of it? There was an enormous government drive to manipulate people into signing up for the army.

Our government provided sub-standard equipment for the recent wars in the Middle East, just another economic decision, saving money over lives.

Not sure what I'm going on about really, but economics always comes into it, when it comes to policy decisions.