Children could be collateral damage in COVID19 control

[Kokeshi123]

www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/exclusive-children-may-be-covid-19-collateral-damage/7027315.article

"Children may have died from non-coronavirus illnesses because they are not coming to hospital quickly enough, amid concerns NHS 111 may be giving flawed advice to stay away, according to senior pediatricians."

There are also concerns that kids will wind up with spotty vaccination records which end up not being made up for later on. In terms of risk to kids themselves, I'm actually more concerned about future outbreaks of measles and diphtheria than about CV itself, I have to say.

I'm also concerned about the impact on little children's immune systems and eyesight development if lockdowns and other restrictions (esp being completely kept away from other children) are allowed to persist for months rather than weeks. The world's foremost leukemia expert has been pretty adamant that children should ideally be exposed to lots of other children and normal germs in their environments, because raising babies in an immunological bubble raises the risk of their developing autoimmune conditions later on.

As we try to decide how long the lockdown should persist, these factors need to be taken into account IMO.

[GirlOnIt]

The same applies to everyone posting about isolating though @SansaSnark. How many people before this have gone into work sick? How many with potential flu? I've seen plenty of posters before all this saying that if you can work or go to school you definitely should, even if unwell. Everyone's so concerned for the elderly and vulnerable but how much did they care before?

I'm also not saying it's ok for children to live in abusive homes at all. But child protection isn't just about children being physically or sexually abused. A lot of support that families were getting, is currently not available and that's putting a lot of pressure on social services.
Yes children who already have a social worker can still attend school, although they also have a perfect excuse not to take them. But a lot of referrals come from schools and nurseries about children who are as yet unknown to ss, those children could now be slipping through the gaps.

I'm not saying it's not a horrendous situation and honestly I don't know that's the best course of action to take. But I think it's ok to be concerned about something other than covid-19. I can worry about my vulnerable grandparents catching the virus and still worry about the children who's parents struggle at the best of times, the people who struggle daily with their mental health and the ones living in violent, abusive homes.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

Some people on this thread however don't seem to believe that it is the illness causing NHS issues, not the lockdown.

I don't think people are saying the lockdown is causing issues with the NHS. Some are saying that some services ought to be ring-fenced and maintained despite the pressure on the rest of the service. The main argument about the lockdown is that the effect of it will be detrimental to health for years to come, maybe decades in the case of children. That poverty from a ruined economy will shorten millions of lives and mean less funding for the NHS in the future. And that the lockdown will make demand for services increase (though probably remain unmet) as there are more issues around mental health, accidents in the home, etc.

No one has said the illness isn't an issue for the NHS.

[MRex]

You just don't get it @BoomBoomsCousin. Left unchecked, the virus would cause worse economic and poverty issues. Meanwhile those "ringfenced" resources are dying and passing coronavirus between vulnerable families. You can't tot up issues on one side as though the world would be running as normal if it weren't for that dastardly lockdown.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

I think that would be highly unlikely MRex. The Spanish flu epidemic, which hit the core economic producers harder than the rest of society and had a higher mortality rate, was followed by boom years economically (not that I want to follow the 1920s’ economic pattern, but the Spanish flu didn’t pull the economy down).

[Inkpaperstars]

From the point of view of stopping the epidemic, the best strategy would have been to enter complete lockdown in January and remain so until we have a vaccine in a year to 18 months.

We haven't done and won't be doing any such thing, because the economy and people' s other priorities in life have been factored in. Thousands of people have died as a result of the choice not to lock down earlier and longer...as a result of the govt deciding that the cost of such a lockdown was too great.

I don't know where the right balance is, it's going to be changing all the time. But don't kid yourselves there is not already a balance being attempted. The costs of lockdown haven't been ignored, they have been taken seriously to the point that people have been sacrificed to the virus to avert some of those costs. It works both ways sadly, there are no good answers.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

I don’t think a complete lock down for 18+ months would be possible Ink. So much would need doing to keep things going for 18 months it would be virtually no lockdown at all.

I do appreciate your point that we haven’t done as much as we could, that there could be a much stricter approach. I don’t know that I think it’s a matter of balance, though. We seem to be lurching from one position to another, moved mainly by public opinion, not rational analysis of good data.

[Inkpaperstars]

Yes you could be right about that Boom, I felt as I typed it that balance was not really the right word!

[BeijingBikini]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8190111/Coronavirus-lockdown-costing-Britain-2-4billion-DAY-national-output-slashed-31-percent.html

[cptartapp]

Marie the second HPV vaccine can be given anytime between 6 months - 2 years after the first. The school nurses will just reschedule them at a later date. Maybe even do their booster with the next cohorts first injection IYSWIM.
Practice nurses can give them, but it's rare. They have to be ordered in and might not be classed as 'essential' at this very minute.

[Jellycatspyjamas]

Maybe Childline should increase their advertising on websites and social media frequented by children. I'd donate to a fundraising page for that.
As admirable as that may be, maybe people could increase their support for social workers who are working with the most vulnerable families day in and day out throughout the year. Childline offer a listening service for children - they aren’t investigating child protection issues or actively changing the child’s circumstances. The reality is that schools, nurseries and service providers create a safety net around some very vulnerable children that isn’t there to the same extent, the reality is that despite this safety net some children do, and will continue to live in pretty desperate circumstances.

This virus has highlighted just how fragile our society is, but I very much doubt anything will change for those very vulnerable children because social work is neither heroic or noble in most peoples eyes and is most definitely not a vote winner. That’s ever been the case regardless of the virus, there has always been a section of society we’re prepared to sacrifice.

[SFCA]

Social workers are key workers and are still working. We have 6 weeks away from school every summer and for some children this, very sadly means being unseen for that period as they do not have access to essential services. Children are still, in worst-case scenarios coming into the care system and foster carers are still being approved.

@YappityYapYap my DC will not have physio therapy, SALT, occupational therapy, hydrotherapy, hippo therapy or rebound therapy for at least 3 months, if not until September now. We are also looking at 20+ cancelled outpatients appointments at the moment. This is all unfortunate but the focus at the moment is keeping them healthy and out of hospital. It would be worth phoning your son’s SALT and asking for activities to do at home with him, they should be able to direct you. My DC have a lot of therapy but we need to carry it out with them everyday anyway under the guidance of the therapists, an hour a week will never be enough.

[Poppinjay]

As admirable as that may be, maybe people could increase their support for social workers who are working with the most vulnerable families day in and day out throughout the year.

I couldn't agree more but I don't think that has any chance of changing until after the next election.

[ITasteSpring]

I do start to wonder if the cost of stopping the virus is getting too high.
Poverty kills too. And all the other serious ill effects described above.

I dunno. It is one of those situations where it is a choice between shit and shit, and at some point we need to decide which is slightly less shit than the other.

And surely once the lock down stops, the virus will just start to come back until a vaccine is created.

[Poppinjay]

It is one of those situations where it is a choice between shit and shit, and at some point we need to decide which is slightly less shit than the other.

That point is now. The less shit option is currently lockdown.

[Devlesko]

Fewer kids are ill from chicken pox than are contracting corona though, and kids are dying too.
I think kids will be collateral damage from corona as they'll have to go back to school too soon for childcare so parents can get back to work.
Kids will continue to die from this the same as adults.
66,000 deaths is suggested, that's 1% of the population if it stays that low.

[HoffiCoffi13]

Fewer kids are ill from chicken pox than are contracting corona though

We have absolutely no idea how many kids are contracting COVID19, as they are not being tested.

[Hearhoovesthinkzebras]

Do the people calling for an end to lockdown because of children being abused, chemo cancelled, immunisation cancelled, children not going to a and E honestly think that of we end lockdown all of those things will be ok?

Without lockdown Covid cases will run wild. The NHS won't function - so no operations, no chemo, no eating disorder clinics, no a and e, no immunisations. Drs, nurses, social workers, teachers will be sick and will die. How will that help anything at all?

The people suffering from the Hidden effects are suffering because of the virus, not because of lockdown.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

"Without lockdown Covid cases will run wild...Drs, nurses, social workers, teachers will be sick and will die."

If this is the fear, having people get infected quickly and only have hospitals treating at capacity for the shortest possible time would lead to fewer hcp deaths?

The more we lower the curve the longer period of time there will be significant cases requiring medical care, the more hcps will be exposed, the more hcps will contract it and the more hcps will die.

Not that I think that a reason for getting rid of the lockdown, just that hcp risk of covid doesn't seem like a logical reason for extending the lockdown. A shorter more brutal pandemic would surely expose hcps less.

[mac12]

“A shorter more brutal pandemic”
Lockdown is shit but Left unchecked you are talking about total collapse of healthcare system. Minimum half a million dead. Not to mention ‘collateral damage’ of anyone having heart attack, cancer treatment, RTA etc. Many many deaths of HCP.
Thousands dying at home, in the street, in shops - inducing mass panic, trauma, civil unrest.
The collapse of the economy & essential services - when so many are sick (and remember even so called mild cases can be 30 day recovery) or nursing sick loved ones, then all services, from police to teachers to food production to utility workers, would be stretched to breaking point.
Next comes a wave of violent crime & civil unrest. Military on streets.
Maybe 2-3 months until the pandemic runs its course for questionable levels of herd immunity (seriously, some of the latest research isn’t favouring herd immunity as viable concept).
Not a viable route. Most sane Governments do not trash economies unless they have no alternative.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

mac12 I did state quite clearly Not that I think that a reason for getting rid of the lockdown. I was only pointing out that using the deaths of HCPs as a reason to prolong the lockdown isn't logical.

But you keep up with the hyperbole. I'm sure you'd be uncomfortable without it.

[TotorosFurryBehind]

I'm worried about the impact of lockdown on my baby daughter.

The lack of mental stimulation and also I had thought about the issue with development of immune system. It is so noticeable that she has not had as much as a sniffle for a month, it is normal for babies to constantly picking up viruses

[mac12]

@BoomBoomsCousin I know you didn’t call for it to be lifted. But I do sense there’s a growing mood on MN & RL to lift the lockdown. And it worries me because we haven’t done any of the smart things to manage this like S Korea or Germany. So the alternative is to let it burn through the population (I know there’s talk of managed waves & taps being turned on & off but that’s modelling not real life) - and I’m sorry it sounds like hyperbole but I see no scenario where with that kind of high hospitalisation & death rate wouldn’t be accompanied by collapse of health service, economy & essential services.

[MRex]

A shorter more brutal pandemic would surely expose hcps less'

It is the reverse. The more patients that health care professionals see, the higher viral load risk they run. Higher viral load appears so far to be a very probable cause of otherwise healthy individuals having a more severe case and dying. If you overwork and overstretch health care professionals, then mistakes are more likely and those mistakes create a higher viral load for their bodies to deal with. Not only that, but this rampant brutal pandemic of yours could lead to many many people leaving high viral load everywhere; so someone picking up the infection on pubic transport is getting it from 10 people not 1, so that's them screwed too. Even if they're young.

This is a disease, it is barely starting to be understood. Listen to what the experts in communicable disease are telling you. There are new viral illnesses all the time and they have NEVER asked half the world to stay at home before, nor would governments have let them. It doesn't matter that you don't or won't understand, you're just going to have to trust that there is a very good reason.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

Our healthcare workers are expected to be overwhelmed even with the lockdown, it's just going to be at or over capacity for a lot longer. they will be overstretched for longer, they will be overworked for longer. Why would that not provide a higher viral load than seeing the same number of people a day for fewer days? With a lockdown more of the public will get care and more will live - that is the argument for continuing the lockdown, not some made-up crap about it saving HCPs' lives.

This is a disease, it is barely starting to be understood. Listen to what the experts in communicable disease are telling you. This has nothing to do with your argument that flattening the curve will save HCPs' lives, and wasn't something I challenged in your post.

[BoomBoomsCousin]

MRex The 1918 flu pandemic killed a significantly higher proportion of people than CV does and economies and society did not collapse (even though it hit the economically active harder than CV). So you can probably dial down your anxiety over that.

I also wish the government were being smarter about looking for tools to handle things differently, they seem to have been slow off the block and still not up to speed. I just don't see how lockdown can be a viable tactic for 18 months /2 years until a vaccination is available.