If CV turns out to be less deadly than flu...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

do you think you will still feel the restrictions were worth it?

Just asking out of curiosity really.

Of course isolation related deaths are a concern but your question is comparing CV and flu.
If the advice was to stay at home if you wanted to then a great number of people would go out and infect others. We've seen this before lockdown with people going to pubs for a last hurrah or sunbathing at the crowded beach because it's sunny. A not insignificant number of people need to the told by the government that a karaoke party with 20 people is not ok.

It's crap whatever way you slice it. If you leave it to run rampant, there will be an emotional toll on those who are finding family members dead at home, the medics having to make even more difficult decisions, and those unable to access treatment for other things as the health system has collapsed. The economy wouldn't fair so well either, businesses and industries would still be collapsing, and people losing their homes and jobs; actually this way most people have access to financial support and things like mortgage breaks, rather than just ah tough luck really we aren't doing anything. It's not just the elderly and those with life limiting conditions either who need ventilation and are dying.

Flu cases are spread out over many months, most people won't get it and the hospitals can cope. This is not flu and nobody has any immunity.

So the children who suffer neglect and abuse during isolation are a worthwhile sacrifice @starlightgazers?

Please don't twist my words. Sadly, children were being neglected and abused before isolation. Schools have tried to address this by offering a place to the most vulnerable. Of course, that it awful.

But please tells -What is your alternative suggestion? For us to ignore WHO guidance, let the virus run wild and lose hundreds of thousands or millions to it? For the NHS to collapse completely? What would you suggest we do?

It's not about the severity of the virus itself. We know that the majority of people who get this do not require hospitalisation and will recover within a couple of weeks.

It's about the fact that it is a novel virus to which humans have no natural immunity to, so cannot be compared to flu. Because we lack this immunity, they are zero fire breaks in the population, so left unchecked, it passes to every single person who in turn then passes it in and it rips through the population. And then the people who do need hospitalisation all need it at the same time, the health service is overwhelmed, and people who otherwise would have made it, die because they couldn't get access to the right treatment.

Death rates are dodgy ground as well. You have a 'true' death rate which would be the percentage of deaths where everyone is getting access to proper health are, and then you have higher death rates where people are dying because they couldn't get proper treatment because of an overwhelmed health service.

Which death caused by isolation do you mean? If it is people who are missing their morning jog and feel like they'll keel over without it because they cannot adapt to indoor exercise, not so much.

If it's death caused by suicide while in isolation then yes, it's a concern. But I suspect as many would succumb to suicide by watching more people die in short succession than in two world wars. That's not to say that there shouldn't be more resources to help those people through what is a distressing time.

Those people trapped in houses with abusers, that's a huge worry too. And much more should be done to help.

It's not that this is without consequence, it's just the more reasonable move in a shitty situation. There are no consequence free options.

If CV does turn out to be less deadly in practice than flu, then maybe that will be because we have taken such drastic measures to prevent it spreading.

As it is a new virus, no-one is immune to it.
That is far from the case with the flu.

You've asked a leading question in order to spout your pov at people. It's not a good faith argument and there's no point discussing it further.
There are plenty of other places to lure people into endless cv 'debates'.

@TheDailyCarbuncle you talked about the USA. In NYC they are having to stack the bodies in refrigerated trailer trucks because the morgues are full. I promise you that NEVER happens with the Flu. One hospital had 13 people die in one day from this. If dont understand how you cant understand the point of needing to flatten the curve

Come on OP, you know the rules of the CV forum.

1. No posting positive thoughts.
2. Only threads which are about vast swathes of people dying, lockdown going on for years and riots on the streets are allowed.

Totally agree that the death rates are wildly inaccurate due to the lack of people being tested. If you believe the government that fewer than 10% of cases are being officially diagnosed because they are ill enough to seek medical assistance, you can divide the death rate by 10. So yeah, maybe 4.5% of those ill enough to go to hospital die. But take into account the huge numbers who never go near a hospital and it's 0.45%, or less.

But that won't keep the "OMG we're all going to DIE" brigade happy.

are you aware that this virus will still be around in 6 months time? And a year's time? That you and your family could still get it, even if you follow every single rule of lockdown?

So what do you suggest, smartarse Carbuncle? Please give us the benefit of your towering intellect, applied to this situation.

If I never see the word brigade again it’ll be a good day.

No matter what happens we have learnt a lot from these restrictions-

a) we are obsessed with toilet roll
b) we all need to keep more staple foods in
c) some people don't give a shit about others
d) the majority do care about others
e) we should value shop workers more
f) easter eggs are expensive when other chocolate is available

So, just out of curiosity again, are the isolation-related deaths not a problem? Do we include those in the death rate or ignore them?

That's a completely different question from whether the death rate of Covid 19 will make isolation worhtwhile.

Has anyone made an estimate of how many will die from neglect and abuse as a result of lockdown? I'm painfully aware that there will be some but I couldn't call how many and I don't know whether there are any agencies working on measures to reduce them in the new status quo.

exactly @HoffiCoffi13 this has always been a decision to protect our health system and ensure it doesnt get overwhelmed

I think also sometimes 1% is seen as low - which it is but 1% of the worlds population is 75 million people (that of course is an exaggeration of all the world getting it) but you can see how even if 1% seems low left unchecked it is a pretty high amount

Positive thoughts? Yes, let's build arguments on rainbows, fairies and fake stats. That'll help.

Yes, OF COURSE we are aware that this virus will be around a long time, and that most of us will catch it sooner or later. And the safest thing for all the humans on the planet is that cases of it are spread out over an extended period of time. So the most sick will be able to get the treatment they need.

Lol Four and at think positive thoughts

I suppose the govt tried that at first too.

Totally agree that the death rates are wildly inaccurate due to the lack of people being tested

They are, but from what I have seen, I think the death rate will be higher than WHO are currently quoting. I think they will turn out to be more in line with the first SARS outbreak. It is nothing like flu, and way more deadly.

How does anyone know the death rate of not everyone has been tested and many people get no symptoms?

surely we can't really know what the death rate really is until we have some kind of per capita testing across countries, mixed with possibly random testing of those who don't think they've had it (again on a per capital basis)? At the moment it is health epedimiology (can't spell it!) best guess, no?

My own thinking is we won't really know what the death rate is until 12 months have passed. If X number of people die annually anyway, how many of the people who are dying with CV now would have died in the next 12 months anyway? So overall, we may see a huge surge in death figures now but once things quieten down, the coming months may see less deaths which even it out over a longer period. Deaths in younger people might be up - but then they could remain stable figures long term due to factors like less car crashes 'cos we're not moving about so much and again, if CV is hitting people with underlying conditions, how many younger people who died had a condition they didn't know about which may have resulted in a premature death within the next 12 months?

Long term impact is the scary thing. Whether people who have recovered have long term issues and die prematurely as a result (we won't this figure for many years) and then obviously, the recession/depression which is going to happen from a financial perspective. I suspect the deaths will pale into insignificance compared with that.

I'm not sure everyone is aware of that @blacksax. All the SM posts about 'making sure we don't get this' suggest they think it's about getting rid of the virus entirely.

But if there are large numbers of asymptomatic patients, the death rate could be lower. Which is precisely the same as any other flu.

Positive thoughts? grin Yes, let's build arguments on rainbows, fairies and fake stats. That'll help

Well - quite! Pandemics and mass death are quite hard to put a positive spin on...

Just think, all those hospitals built so urgently but in vain. All those retirees called back into service for no reason. All those volunteers recruited with nothing to do. All those ambulances standing idle waiting for someone to fall ill?

Oh wait. Hospitals in Italy, with one of the best health services in Europe, can't cope. And it's not just because they have a lot more old people. Hospitals in eastern France are shipping patients to western France because they are overwhelmed in the east.

NHS professionals are in tears, begging Brits to stay at home to stop spreading the disease.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp what the problem is?

The problem isn't actually the mortality rate, whatever it may turn out to be, although so many people dying is serious. The problem is so many people getting really ill, ill enough to require hospitalisation, all at once. That is why it's so serious.