I'm 32 and not ready to die - anyone else care to demonstrate it's not just older people this will hit hardest?

[Helenshielding]

I keep seeing posts by people saying they dont think we should be on lockdown to protect older people who will "die next year anyway" or similar.

Here's the thing, over 70s are not "old" these days. People can live well into their 80s, 90s and 100s now.

I'm 32, I've survived cancer (which is now clear- it is not a case of it being controlled, it's been gone for 10 years), I happen to have some lung damage. I dont know what my life expectancy is, but I know it's not 33.

So if you're moaning about socially distancing etc for older adults, stop. You're doing it to prevent deaths of all ages. Younger people with no underlying conditions are dying of this virus.

Stay home. Shut up. Stop moaning. We will all get through this a hell of a lot quicker.

Mould,

The opposite of this, however, is that some believe that this can be continued for a protracted period of time with no meaningful consequences to life or happiness.

They believe that it will be like a Hollywood movie and we will all emerge from our confinement, smiling, under a warm sun in a crystal blue sky, to queue up to get our vaccine and get back to normal life.

The messy reality is that there are no good choices and whatever we choose will have a cost, and not just a financial one.

As a young, healthy person with a 0.2% chance, I know I can only take this weeks - not months.

Well, I have 2 tings to say to that: you may be carrying viral traces, and get it mildly, but you might also pass it on to someone who gets it badly.

But the main thing is: I have Chinese colleagues telling me about the lockdown in China. They practiced extreme physical distancing in far less congenial conditions than most of us in the west. One of them said to me, that it was just as well they had a 2-bedroom apartment, and their daughter was studying away - it meant he and his wife (who's a doctor) could practice physical distancing within a small flat .

They used the bathroom & kitchen at different times, slept in different rooms, and were never in the same room together.

They have been managed this for 70 days, with far fewer distractions and conveniences than we have. They both kept working, and were daily checked on by their local authority: temperature & symptoms. And my colleague's wife was a frontline worker at one of the hospitals in the Chinese epicentre.

So quite complaining and just get on with it. A day at a time.

to save the fewer than 500,000 who die every year

No, those who die from Covid 19 won't tidily die instead of those 500,000 and keep the annual numbers the same. They will be in addition to . It's not a case of Covid 19 just pushing half a million last gaspers off their perch a bit earlier, so what's the diff?

It's like the ICU and ventilator situation. There are still going to be the heart attacks, strokes, car accidents, blood clots, all the usual things that keep the UK ICU capacity running at near full all the time. Covid 19 patients are going to be on top of all this.

Again: vulnerable and elderly people are being shielded not because the conservative government has a ridiculously soft heart - for pete's sake look at their track record with this! They're being put out of the way because so many of them would automatically stuff up essential care that the rest of the populace will need access to. Because a percentage of the general healthy population will become ill enough to need a hospital bed and ventilation. Even a small percentage means hundreds of thousands of people.

You might want to look at the discussions currently being held around NHS Nightingale, such as will the ICU facilities there take only Covid 19 patients or do they also take and ventilate those rushed in with head injuries from a car crash, heart attacks, strokes, etc? And how feasible will it be to try and separate those groups out when the surge comes and any ventilator space may have to be grabbed regardless of where it is.

If you only engage in one side of the debate, being the harder people are locked down, the more immediate lives are saved, we should go full police state and do what the Chinese did. We could even shoot the odd person with a fever who went out. That would send a message.

On the other hand, if you consider that being locked down long term and having our freedoms indefinitely infringed is a real cost to society and that we are fighting a disease with about a 1% CFR, not bubonic plague, a more proportionate response is required.

I think we have about got it right at the moment but, at some point, we need to consider the next stage. And that point needs to be measured in a relatively small number of months.

If you only engage in one side of the debate, being the harder people are locked down, the more immediate lives are saved,

That's a political debate, and again about trying to prevent apocalyptic scenes in hospitals when the NHS has become totally overwhelmed, not due to sentimentality over individual lives.

Debate in the newspapers this morning that lockdown in the UK will have to go on for longer directly because the govt tried to go down the herd immunity path and thought they could preserve the economy while they did it. Therefore they didn't aggressively test and trace, therefore the virus has got away from them.

@larrygrylls I agree you can’t just look at coronavirus numbers, you also have to consider deaths from lockdown, suicide, DV, starvation, civil unrest, the first month the numbers will be low for lockdown but as the months go on the scales will top the other way, it’s a balancing which the government will be looking at, they will have a date where this is unsustainable anymore.

Interesting article that women are 50% less less likely to die from the virus than men:
www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-men-women

Just to put things into prospective re children under 5, 3248 children died in the uk in 2018, compare that to 1 death recorded so far for Coronavirus.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables

So many of us here are not just engaging in a debate here. We are being debated, our vulnerability makes us a discussion point - people who would be a mere “oh they had underlying conditions - oh well” smudging your day, if at all, with the inconvenience of our passing.

If you can’t see how that’s hard for us then you are quite clearly lacking in compassion.

Imagine the weight we have over our heads. Our lives are on pause just like every one else, we contribute to society but we have also been told to prepare a hospital bag and not to leave the house at all for 12 weeks.
We have the weight of being marked out as so vulnerable that we need to be protected but we also get to have our lives debated.

Ban,

You are choosing to view this through the lens of your own suffering.

Every day we make decisions that impact other people, we just choose not to examine them. As someone said above, you have a house, you have savings. These could all be given in the fight against malaria or starvation in the third world.

You say you have made some sacrifices....and maybe you have...but you have retained a substantial amount of money and comfort for you and your family. You have not decided to share equally with those much less well off.

And yet you are outraged when others discuss you in the same way as you clearly discuss or think about others.

And no one is saying ‘let’s sacrifice Ban’ even though you are choosing to read it that way. You could well not get it, anyway, or be one of the 18% who are completely asymptomatic.

The discussion is about what is the value of a life to society, versus the loss of the enjoyment of life (and other lives lost later). It is one NICE considers every day and governments across the World are considering now. It is complex, both logistically and morally and trying to shame people into taking one extreme view is not helpful.

The discussion is about what is the value of a life to society, versus the loss of the enjoyment of life

That isn't what the OP started the thread for, and no, that's not what the discussion is about.

Michelle,

Well I disagree and this is an open forum.

You have changed the discussion from what OP started it as to suit your own agenda.
You have refused to answer questions we have asked you and tried to make us seem selfish and immature. You have pushed your own agenda on this thread. Yes it’s an open forum but those of us on the vulnerable list could well use a sounding board for our frustrations without you coming in and preaching to us.

Ban,

Create one then. So many closed forums available in the internet. It is not hard.

those of us on the vulnerable list could well use a sounding board

Create one then

Why create another when that's exactly what this one was created for? Why don't you start another thread for the aspect you want to talk about instead of drag this one off track?

And 'Closed forum' - so hidden away then?

The irony is strong.

I just reread the OP.

It is absolutely NOT a support thread for those worried and vulnerable.

It is a diatribe against anyone not sticking exactly to the rules.

There are actually plenty of support threads and I would not post on those.

You’re rather tiresome.

It is a diatribe against anyone not sticking exactly to the rules.

Do you know what diatribe means? I'm not being angry or bitter. What was in my mind is I'm seeing people talk about the elderly and vulnerable dying of something else next year anyway so why should we bother. I posted because I wanted to show that it isnt the case. And plenty of others have done so too.

Yes, I'm frustrated that a local park was crammed with people at the weekend. Yes, I'm sad that there are posters who dont value any life other than their own (and say this - plenty of examples quoted on the thread).

Plenty of posters have said they find the thread helpful.

So no, nothing I have posted has been a diatribe.

Stay home. Shut up. Stop moaning. We will all get through this a hell of a lot quicker.

And if this is diatribe then you live a charmed life in fantasy land

except we wont get through this a hell of a lot quicker - lockdown now is designed to be the exact opposite stretch it out

We have no idea where to do from here and that is the scary part and that is what people are struggling with I think. If you told anybody if you stay at home for 12 weeks and it will all be over all of us would. But that isnt what is going to happen, the next 4 weeks are going to be pretty rough but what is going to happen after that.

I can honestly see the situation where we are all tested and only those who have antibodies allowed out - how horrific is that. At the moment I and my daughter have symptoms of it so there is a good chance that my family might be allowed out - but what about others how on earth does that work

I can honestly see the situation where we are all tested and only those who have antibodies allowed out - how horrific is that.

Yes, I've heard this. I do wonder how on earth it could work in practice though. There would be a black market on antibody certificates.

You're right, lockdown will stretch it out. I take your point on that one. I guess what we must remember is that we are not just locking down for the good of one group in society. Keeping the NHS functioning is for the benefit of us all.

I agree and that is what I find frustrating - we are doing this for everyone, to enable the health service to survive and for people to stand the best problem with surviving this

But actually my biggest problem with lockdown is the fact we are seemingly locking down the NHS for everything other than COVID 19 and I find that incredibly dangerous. My Aunt got diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer in February, early and before it spread. She should have been in yesterday for her operation and chemo soon after. But she isnt because the hospital are delaying operations and everything is COVID related - at some point that has to stop because we will start to lose people because we are focusing to much time.

We have to keep strong for the next 6/8 weeks I agree, no going out and ploughing through this horrible peak. But after that measures have to be introduced so that parts of the NHS and normal life can resume so non COVID things can be treated

OP, your 'shut up' instruction was what prompted me to post in the first place. Even though I don't disagree with what you've posted as such, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell other people to shut up whilst you yourself go to some length to shut other people down.

I agree with larrygrylls's posts; not pleasant to read but nothing about this virus is - and they've been a lot politer than you have.

This isn't your thread, it's a thread you started - and other people have the right to post on it, even if they have a different view to you.

Lying as I keep saying, post your view, go ahead. Just dont throw me and people like me under the bus because lockdown isnt all about us. It's about relieving the strain on the NHS.

I dont think telling the old and vulnerable to be "grateful" is polite. It's like telling a council worker to be grateful you're paying their wages....

I'm literally not leaving the house, neither are any of the people who are shielding as directed. I'm not grateful for people following instructions, I'm grateful I live in a civilised society where we all play our part.

Where exactly have I been impolite other than the "shut up and stay at home" in the OP out of interest?

If you read back i havent policed the thread; I've argued back which is surely what a thread is for? I understand the concept of mumsnet having been here for many years