Is the fear out of proportion?

[Hotlungs]

I’m asking this genuinely as I struggle with anxiety and have a tendency to catastrophise.
I read yesterday that 99.5% of people will survive if they have the virus. Whilst I understand that people are worried they are in the 0.5% is the fear rationale? The press describing it as a ‘killer virus’ and people saying they don’t want to go to the supermarket incase they die. Obviously I’m not talking about those in the vulnerable group.
Are we doing poor risk management? Again to clarify I don’t mean the current lockdown situation to protect the NHS (which is needed) but I mean the fear of it.
We are more likely to die in our cars but we risk manager that (with precautions) to still use them. What are people’s thoughts?

I completely agree. We are only in lockdown so the government could be seen to be doing something...

We will only leave lockdown when the public is fed up. According to some this may take a while!

So both your parents are suffering from serious depression and are shadows of their former selves because of lockdown but they both live alone?

My mother is dead, my dad is not coping.
My FIL is not coping.

Do you really imagine that you're going to trip me up here?

Also Marginal I assume your dad already suffers from fairly severe mental health problems if he's this badly affected.

Why would you think this?

being higher risk isn't equivalent to being expendable

Actually I disagree. Should we sacrifice the quality of life of the young and healthy , likley leading to more deaths - to save a 90 year old with vascular dementia. What about someone will late stage motor neurons. How about someone on life support after a car accident will little chance of recovery.

Somtimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. We can't protect everyone. So tough decisions need to be made about who's life should be prioritised. And that will always be those that have the best chance of living a long and full life.

I know what you're saying. But if a population is more at risk. Ie men. This doesn't make them expendable. This is the virus. Not policy!

Naruralbornkiller We haven't had a full lockdown. Certainly not like France Italy, Spain.

It's not my point that I'm making. It's the point made by scientists like Angela Merkel, by epidemiologists, by the Bank of England governor. Experts in medicine, science, and the economy. Yes, I think they're likely right. It's their area of expertise so I trust their judgement.

How do you propose we protect all 30-40% of the population who are vulnerable to Covid? As I've said most aren't included in the shielding list despite some being at the very highest risk.

If we did lift the lockdown and hospital admissions started rising, we could just implement a lockdown again
How many extra deaths do you think will happen in the meantime? We're already one of the worse countries in the world in that regard. Do you think that's a problem and we shouldn't be looking to increase the numbers? How will hospitals cope in the second wave? With even more staff off sick or dead? What about the disproportionate affect on BAME communities? Do you not think that's an issue and something we should consider when deciding how to proceed?

What about the impact on the economy of stop, start, stop, start. I agree with the BoE governor. Some, presumably you, don't. I'm interested in why people think constant short notice disruption is preferable? Perhaps I've not thought of something that you have.

@ToffeeYoghurt the BAME population is disproportionately affected by poverty, wage gap, diabetes etc etc

No one has previously implied this is because they are 'expendable' though

elephant I'm surprised paediatrians don't realise children with cancer are at risk because of the pandemic, not the lockdown. What happens when a ward full of vulnerable cancer patients (child or adult) has a Covid outbreak? It takes just one infected person to spread it. Who will care for cancer patients if the NHS is overwhelmed during a second wave? 100 or more healthcare staff are already dead. Who treats the patients if the staff are off sick or dead? In any event, urgent non Covid work is meant to still be going ahead. It is in some areas and if it's not in your area that's an issue that needs sorting out asap. They should be doing more now in fact as there'll have more staff and capacity than when lockdown ends.

Do people not believe more haste less speed is applicable here? If so, why not? As I've said perhaps I haven't considered something that you have.

I think you have misunderstood their point

perhaps I haven't considered something that you have

Perhaps

ToffeeYoghurt please give up on the 'More Haste Less Speed' slogan, fgs. It doesn't fit the situation and the repetition is incredibly irritating!

It's irrelevant why they're disproportionately affected for the purpose of considering when to end lockdown. The reasons need to be looked into but that's a separate issue. The fact is that they are and therefore they will be more affected if we end lockdown too early. Which suggests those calling for a premature end see them (and the 30%+ of the population who are vulnerable) as expendable. If that's not the case, what is your solution? How do we end lockdown early without it disproportionately affecting them?

@ToffeeYoghurt everyone has a higher or lower risk of death. Based on multiple factors. Age sex ethnicity. Plus many more. Such is life.

Flies Some people find my repeating that slogan irritating. I find their dismissal of it irritating. More than that, I find it deeply concerning. That's life. We won't all agree on things. Out of interest, why do you think it doesn't fit the situation? Plenty of experts do. Merkel and the Bank of England governor for example.

And some people are taking an almost gratuitous delight in begging for stricter lockdown or exclaiming "we won't be normal for the foreseeable!

OMG this exactly @nuitdesetoiles

It's not my point that I'm making. It's the point made by scientists like Angela Merkel, by epidemiologists, by the Bank of England governor. Experts in medicine, science, and the economy. Yes, I think they're likely right. It's their area of expertise so I trust their judgement.

Indeed. But the armchair experts on MN think they know best.

Most countries have imposed some form of lockdown in an effort to deal with coronavirus, knowing their economies will take a major hit. No government wants to do that, they had to in order to prevent even worse damage further down the line.

In these unprecedented times even the experts are giving their opinion based on best guess. We have no outcome data. No proven facts. No peer review. This is why expert opinion is so varied. Think U.K. v Sweden.

And I certainly wouldn't consider a politician. Even in Germany... an expert

Flies Some people find my repeating that slogan irritating. I find their dismissal of it irritating. More than that, I find it deeply concerning

You find it 'deeply concerning' that people don't want to read your slogan over and over again? How vain. We've been bombarded with the Gov slogans for weeks, really don't need another one added in.

Out of interest, why do you think it doesn't fit the situation? Plenty of experts do. Merkel and the Bank of England governor for example.

No, they don't. Merkel and the Bank of England do not employ trite repetitive slogans to get their points across. It doesn't fit the situation because people are not being 'hasty', they are trying to return to some semblance of normality and 'speed' is not what is required, proper reflection and considered action is.

If we did lift the lockdown and hospital admissions started rising, we could just implement the lockdown

That's not an if. We're not going to try it just to show you because you're engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. That will definitely happen because we haven't stamped out the virus anywhere, we don't have the treatments yet and we don't have herd immunity via a vaccine or in any other way.

My mother is dead, my dad is not coping.
Do you really imagine that you're going to trip me up here?

You said that you are trying to deal with seriously depressed parents but if your mother is dead you only have one parent. So yes

Actually I disagree. Should we sacrifice the quality of life of the young and healthy , likley leading to more deaths - to save a 90 year old with vascular dementia

Not everyone who is high risk is 90-year-olds with dementia. Some of those who are high risk are also young.

proper reflection and considered action
I agree. We might not be so different in our views after all.

No-one has to read "my slogans". There's no gun to your head forcing you. People are free to ignore and scroll past. I have some good news for you. I won't have as much time to post tomorrow.

I've done what I can to protect myself and my family from Covid. Hopefully we'll avoid it but we're well prepared as best we can be if we do catch it. I wish I could protect others as well. People taking heed of expert advice would help but it seems, just as happened when the pandemic started, too many people will only accept reality when it personally affects them.

I think some refuse to believe we're up against a highly contagious deadly virus, or think it's like a human and cares that we want to return to normal, or they think they're protected and it will only harm others. Perhaps some live in a relatively unaffected area and think it won't come to them when people start travelling again. Or they're young and have no underlying conditions (that they know of) and don't have any close family or friends at risk. Some don't seem to realise even if they and their loved ones don't die, they'll be impacted by the knock-on effects - on the NHS, on schools, on the economy.

Like most people I want it all to go away. I don't want to be in lockdown. But I also realise it's not just going to magically go away. And I'd far rather a slightly longer lockdown now than repeated stop, start ones. How stressful and disruptive that would be. I want the least bad option out of all shit options. I want longer term economic recovery, which won't happen with stop, start waves. I have to concede defeat here. I've had my say. It's there for posterity (as long as MN exists).

@ToffeeYoghurt I totally agree with everything you have said. I'm not sure whether some posters just don't get it or whether they do not care. I find some of the comments by some posters quite chilling. I think they are in the minority though.

It’s interesting how this is a “killer”, “deadly” virus. No one ever says they’re getting into their “killer car” or stuffing another “deadly doughnut” into themselves.

I think some refuse to believe we're up against a highly contagious deadly virus, or think it's like a human and cares

I think so too, but generally the ones who I think think this way are the ones talking like lockdown is a magical answer to all of our problems.

Perhaps some live in a relatively unaffected area and think it won't come to them when people start travelling again.

Again, this seems like an argument to lift lockdown in those areas. It's almost like people are forgetting the whole point of the lockdown is to not overwhelm the NHS. If you're in a relatively unaffected area then surely you want it to spread? You want to be building up immunity in the community while your hospital has the best chance of coping with the small minority who get seriously ill.

Or they're young and have no underlying conditions (that they know of) and don't have any close family or friends at risk.

There are huge numbers of people in this category and I'm finding the finger pointing and cries of selfishness a bit annoying now. Everyone is selfish. The people at high risk who want lockdown are just as selfish as those at low risk who don't want lockdown.

People are sacrificing a lot for something that has negligible benefits to them personally. That's a fact.

Some don't seem to realise even if they and their loved ones don't die, they'll be impacted by the knock-on effects - on the NHS, on schools, on the economy.

Is this a joke? Are you seriously suggesting that we are not ALL being impacted right now by the complete lack of schooling, the removal of non-Covid NHS services, and the shredded economy? Do you think removing of lockdown and moving to social distancing could possibly make that worse? At least children could get an education and people could open their business and go back to work. I do not see how that is any worse than what we have now.

Like most people I want it all to go away. I don't want to be in lockdown. But I also realise it's not just going to magically go away.

For once something we can agree on.

But I do have to ask, if it's not going away, then what do you expect to happen? Do we just lockdown forever?

I will be very interested to compare the death rates between the UK and other countries after this is all over. We have a high death rate but that's because we let it spread more, and so we probably also have a higher immunity rate. People can't die twice. You are either at risk of dying or you are immune. The countries with the lower death rates just haven't let it spread as much, but they will have to. There is no other way out of this. And when they do, their deathrate will just catch up with ours.

I do think our death rate will be higher anyway because we are leaving people to turn blue and die at home when we have hospitals sitting empty. But that's a fuck up of the gov and the nhs. That's not going to magically get better. Maybe when this is all over we can encourage more health care professionals to come to this country and start paying bursaries again. Silver linings.