How many lives are we actually saving

[Baaaahhhhh]

An interesting read from the BBC, and a question that I have been wondering about since the ONS released figures last week.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Article talks about the effect of different scenarios on the number of excess deaths ie: over and above what would be expected, and versus other seasonal illnesses like normal flu.

I think we should divide people in to two groups.

Group A can be everyone who wants to proritise the ecinomy and get everything bavk to normal immediately.

Group B can be everyone who wants to stay in lockdown, either to protect themselves their dc or vulnerable people and the NHS in general.

Group A go back to work, dc back to school and can socialise all they want. Group B stay in lockdown.

But Group A have to stay out of hospitals if they get any sort of illness including CV, for the good of the economy, of course.

I don't think anyone's unaware of the heartbreaking effects of a lockdown, actually.

They're saying the virus will drain resources and cause huge suffering whether you have one or not-but with a lockdown you have at least partially contained a situation where the weakest among us are being picked off in devastating numbers. As it is, the lockdown we have is the minimum and the latest that will keep us under the threshold (perhaps) of what our health services can treat. No civilised person could blindly sign off on the alternative, surely? Perhaps they have no particular affection for the elderly and vulnerable but most people recognise the prudence of keeping our doctors and nurses alive, if only to perform the duties that interest us personally.

Ironically, we could probably have escaped the whole thing with more draconian measures earlier. This was not inevitable.

Bear in mind that you don't need to die of Coronavirus to die because of Coronavirus.

If we allow this to overwhelm the NHS and I have a heart attack and the ambulance takes 6 hours to get to me I might never have been near a case of covid-19 but I will be dead nonetheless.

If a huge amount of doctors and nurses get severe cases and die due to the amount they are exposed then maybe in two years, long after the covid-19 crisis has passed, the wait for an oncologist is an extra 6 months after a suspected cancer. Because you can't just train new doctors overnight.

What is the solution suggested by those who want it to roam free? Just don't take those cases to hospital, however treatable they are?

Breathtaking selfishness. Also short-sighted as there's no returning to the life we had before for a long time in any possible world-what you want is irrelevant.

Why is wanting to return to work and get on with life selfish?

Someone has to produce food, clothes, water and electricity need to be kept running, police and courts are working.

Most people need to work so they can pay their bills. Trying to survive, is that selfish?

But Group A have to stay out of hospitals if they get any sort of illness including CV, for the good of the economy, of course.

And how is soup B going to survive without Group A working?

You know, food deliveries, food production, medicine supply, refuse collection, it's not the fairies who provide all that.

The same way they would if it was a war tanking the economy. The government gets us throughnit and we pull together afterwards.

Don't think 'lets surrender now it would be better for the economy' would be popular.

I don't know yet wether an extended lockdown is the best way or not, but this comment was extremely arrogant:

1.we are not really that locked down anyway since people insist on going to the shops regularly and wandering around for exercise.
Imagine you and your husband are NOT a doctor and a lawyer and DON'T have a big house to exercise in, or garden, or a freezer, or kitchen space to store food for a long while, or the ready cash to buy in bulk and you might understand why people are still going to the shops and "wandering round"!

The government do not want to save lives. They want to keep everyone out of hospital at the same time. They're not arsed about saving people.

Roughly 3000 people die in this country every day. You can't save everyone. As harsh as that is to face it is the truth.

the government gets us throughnit and we pull together afterwards.

And how exactly are we pulling together if you want some to work, so the rest can stay at home, but you don't even want them to be allowed to go to the doctors?

How is the government going to get us through if no one is working?

You might be wealthy enough to stay home for long as whatever. Most people aren't.

Counterargument, by an economist:

"Don't believe the myth that we must sacrifice lives to save the economy"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/there-is-no-trade-off-between-the-economy-and-health

Another good article, on this:
thecritic.co.uk/why-the-coronavirus-shutdown-is-worth-it/

No one is saying the a shutdown isn't worth it, but how long a shutdown?

There has to be an exit strategy and a balance must be found.

buttermilkwaffles - thanks for linking that Guardian piece. Really clear and reasoned.

Please, the people shouting the loudest about getting back to normal quickly are only saying that because they aren't vulnerable/don't have vulnerable family amd friends. Or not ones they love at least.

They aren't bothered about us 'pulling together' either. They are just pissed off at something they feel is negatively affecting them when they have little risk (or so they think).

So if they think the economy is worth risking lives, let them risk their own damn life. Put your life where your mouth is.

I thought it was a fair solution. Those shrieking about how it isn't fair and about the damage to the economy (which is fucked either way) can do whatever they want. Go to work, browse clothes shops, go to a cafe/festival, whatever.

But stay the fuck out of the hospitals if you catch coronavirus. You don't get to decide how much risk you want to put everyone else, including nhs staff, in. Only yourself.

Well, I'm sorry that some of us have to work for a living.

So does everyone else.

But something has come along that is going to fuck our global economy whatever happens, what is your point?

@Rocketmam wow do you not think people have elderly parents, husbands with under lying health problems but we also have children that need to carry on with their lives, it’s not money i’m worried about, it’s loss of hope for the next generation. If society breaks down it will be the fittest will survive.

My point is that if people didn't go to work then you will have nothing to eat and no heating, and electricity.

But you are happy to dismiss it. You seem to think you are entitled to our lives. You are not.

People who think they are not at risk are delusional, just look at the two young nurses who have died from COVID in the UK, it's terrifying and could be fatal to anyone. Everyone should stop moaning about superficial inconvenience and stick to the rules to save lives after all it could be your life that's at stake here.

The false equivalencies on here are staggering.

It is not live vs economy or lives vs lives. That is a massive oversimplification.

The economic impact was baked in a cake and done before the virus even reached the U.K. Chine shutting down that much of it’s production for that long had already triggered massive sell offs and shortages that had ruined the heavy shipping industry almost over night.

And corona does not exist separately to everything else. People are still dying of cancer and the flu and traffic accidents and other diseases.

The problem is that our systems are set up on a demand basis. Corona has fucked that up royally. Hospitals were not made to cope with such a huge and sudden jump in demand. Neither were the morgues.

This is not about saving a single life. Although the more altruistic will focus on that aspect. It is about saving society as a whole. We are very much teetering on the brink of the entire health and welfare system falling over through increased demand- creating more deaths.

Corona has changed the world because it has made us all focus on the actual essentials in society. I’m afraid at this point people have to adapt as best they can because the do nothing route is just as disasterous as the lockdown route.

The task is to choose which way you wanted to be fucked. Choose the form of your destroyer.

It’s not just the direct deaths from CV though.

If the virus is allowed to continue unchecked, the healthcare system would become totally overwhelmed. That means more deaths from everything. Emergencies not attended. Healthcare staff dying in huge numbers because of near constant exposure.

And the virus expanding exponentially until - well I don’t know what the end stop would be 🤷🏻‍♀️

There is no Government in the developed world who would let this rip and kill a million people. To do so would be political suicide, they know that, we know that. The rest is moot.

If the virus is allowed to continue unchecked, the healthcare system would become totally overwhelmed. That means more deaths from everything. Emergencies not attended. Healthcare staff dying in huge numbers because of near constant exposure.

What do you think is happening now?

Cancer treatment is cancelled, midwife appointments are done over the phone, MH appointments reschedules. Don't you think this will cost lives? Are those lives not worth it?

It's lose lose either way.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

What is happening now is we are heading to the peak. Had we not lockdown the peak would be much higher.

Don’t just think of the strain on the NHS. Think of all the people who would be off sick at one time because of the virus. What is the difference between schools being shut because of staffing shortages due to sickness and being shut for lockdown? One is much more controlled than the other and doesn’t result in the collapse of the education system over night.

The government closed schools when they did because we were heading for a severe teacher shortage.

The same goes for policing. How many sick police officers does it take for the system of law and order to be rendered useless? Probably not as many as you think.

Governments have the shot choice between letting everything chaotically grind to a halt and do nothing to stop it. Or to bring things to a temporary halt in a more orderly way and try to save the most necessary economic areas. Which one of these is easier to recover from?

I'm not saying we didn't need the lockdown, but I'm really bemused by the endless calls for it to last until Christmas 2023, at the very least.

We need an exit strategy and we need to be able to go back to work, after the lockdown.

And I'm bemused by the inability of some posters to see that some people need to work, for them to be able to stay in and shield.