Posters who want lockdown lifted

[DianaT1969]

I'm seeing an increase in threads where the poster is impatient for exact details of an exit strategy (even though we can all imagine what it will involve - phased re-opening of some stores and businesses etc,,). Plus we're hearing the usual cries of lockdown is hurting society more than it's helping.
Spain saw a spike in new infections today - the highest since their peak 3 weeks ago. To these posters I'd like to ask what your thread titles will be during our spikes in infections and deaths after this lockdown?
What I'm really getting at is that you don't seem to understand that we're in this for the long haul. There is no quick fix, back to normal.

The fact that people elsewhere in the world die of preventable or treatable conditions like those caused by dirty water supply, malaria or TB does not make a valid argument for allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the UK to die from Covid-19.

'Allowing'? We will have been on lockdown for 7 weeks. I suppose you're one of those people who thinks this is 'a small thing we can do to save lives'. Also it's not hundreds of thousands or anything close.

In fact, the opposite, as widespread Covid-19 infections in the UK would be much more likely to lead to greater infections spreading in poorer parts of the world. On top of the existing TB, malaria etc.

Yes, I know, we've been 'bracing' for coronavirus to 'rip through' Africa since February, but they have something in the order of 1,000 deaths. That represents an infinitesimally small fraction of the number of deaths that the first world intervention will cause.

@effingterrified

It all comes down to this: how long do you expect the public to cooperate with lockdown for the sake of other people's health? I'm not referring to those shielding- they are doing that to protect themselves. I'm referring to those who arent in the high risk groups. How long should they stay at home and risk their own personal circumstances to protect others? 2 months? 6 months? a year?- what is "reasonable"?
Because if you look at our responses to suffering in other parts of the world, we very much take the view of "aw its sad, but it doesnt affect us so". Why is that attitude ok then yet now that very same attitude is suddenly unacceptable or abhorrent?

THAT is the point. To what extent should the public risk their own livelihoods for others? I'm not providing an answer here btw, I'm simply posing the question.

What I find interesting is in the press conferences they talk about wanting to avoid a second peak. I thought this was a given? That there would be a second wave? How can this be avoided. Unless we stay locked down for so long the infection rate gets close to zero?

I thought that too Delatron

My cousins in Essex applied to rejoin the nhs the day lockdown started, both retired 2 years ago, they are still waiting for the green light. So are there shortages of nursing staff??

@Delatron very good point and one I am yet to see a valid answer for.

This won’t go away so why are they/people wanting to further the lockdown and push the 2nd wave into winter when we have so many winter illnesses.

Yes it makes me worry what scientific advice they are getting?!

My thought was a second peak would be inevitable. Not as big as the first and if we coped with the first peak we will with the second. I thought surely the government will want this second wave to be in summer rather than autumn and therefore restrictions would maybe be lifted in June to allow for this second wave.

My worry is that they are following a different strategy. One that is trying to get the infection or R rate to zero. Then lift lockdown. This could take much longer? And surely if we don’t close the borders then the minute we open up then infection rates rise again?

Are we being naive thinking there won’t be a second wave? I wish the journalists would pick up on these things and question them. This has a huge impact on the strategy going forward.

Interesting article in the Telegraph about the second and third waves of deaths which are indirectly caused by the virus. These are deaths happening now running at approximately 2000 per week which consist of people not able or willing to access healthcare because of the crisis.

They include a wide range of typical emergency admissions, including stroke and heart attack patients, as well as those with long term chronic conditions such as diabetes who are not able to access the primary or secondary care services they need. Many are sadly dying in their homes. Others are just getting to hospital too late.

One of the people responsible for the report said the numbers become difficult to relate to if you project them forward.

Third wave is people with diseases such as cancer and heart problems etc going undiagnosed and untreated. We didn’t exactly have great outcomes for cancer compared to other European countries before, Lord knows what they will be now.

Other issues include: Already 2.1 million scheduled operations are thought to have been cancelled and this is on top of the 4.5 million people who were on hospital waiting lists before the crisis.

I find all this loads scarier than the virus which only kills a small fraction of those who get it.

Well sitting around waiting for a vaccine is not a plan, yet seems to be what some expect? Lockdown for a year+ is just not going to work, so some kind of normality has to return soon (although not 'totally normal' of course)

I think a lot have got to the stage where they would rather take the (very small) risk of dying than keep away from families and stuff tbh, especially among the elderly and people who live alone.

Yesterday I withnessed an argument on my fab, between 2 people. Person 1 is in the vulnerable category, person 2 is not. Person 1 was raving about how those who are not vulnerable are just being selfish twats and making it more dangerous for people like her..everyone should have to stay in to protect the high risk. When it was suggested that the high risk should stay in, and that way noone can spread it to them..she hit the roof and said it was unfair to only ask make certain people stay in, and apparently this suggestion was 'selfish' However, WANTING everyone else to be in lockdown because you would be best off in lockdown is surely much more selfish?! Those who are concerned if its ended earlier than they would like are free to keep themselves and their families locked away if they chose to surely? But no, anyone who is not thrilled at the idea of lockdown for a year (and a vaccine is not exactly guaranteed either, and might take much longer) is a selfish bastard who should be made to stay in indefinitely because some other people are high risk. Makes not that much sense to me really..

Asking high risk people to self isolate is the most selfish way of doing this and proves that the heakthy give not a shit about the ill, apparently. Instead, as some are high risk, everyone should suffer, as this is fairer..

We are pretty much the only ones in my street still distancing at the min, or it seems that way. Government will be happy with the amount of people breaking the rules, as when the inevitable second peak comes it can be blamed on the reckless public, rather than acknowledged that even if everyone stuck 100%..a second peak would come when rules were relaxed regardless..

@Theluggage15 I agree that is far scarier.

On my facebook, not my fab. Thing is anything but bloody fab...been staying off as much as possible due to the OTT reactions (from both sides)

The other way the government can play it is no exit plan, just trickle people back to normal, slightly loosening the rules each week to keep the panic to a minimum, the only problem they have is schools, how they address this is difficult, maybe bring certain years back first and drop feed the schools back to normal.
Could also stop fining and such, for people being out and about. Kind of a lifting of lockdown without officially lifting lockdown, so that when second peak hits, they can cry 'its the publics fault, they should have listened to us! You must always listen in future' Which I suspect is the current plan given how things seem to be going here.

'Personal choice is actually important here.

If the op or anyone else feels they wish to lock down for the next twelve to eighteen months then they can crack on and do so.

What they can’t dictate is the rest of us should too.*'

100% agree with the above, you crack on op stay locked down as long as you wish. But unfortunately for my family it's not as simple as it must be for you, we have to get back to work to pay our mortgage and put food on the table. My partner who brings in most of our money isn't getting any of this 80% wages or any help from the government, he's getting nothing. So if it makes you feel better, stay locked down until there is a vaccine but you absolutely cannot be dictating to other people.*

I don't know anyone who's got it. That includes neighbours, family and friends.

What I find interesting is in the press conferences they talk about wanting to avoid a second peak. I thought this was a given? That there would be a second wave? How can this be avoided.

Could be avoided by using different ways to suppress the spread. So doing mass testing and contact tracing (which they're now saying is the plan) alongside keeping some social distancing measures, but not the really restrictive lockdown we have now.

As GoldenOmber says. Also there's only so many people a virus can infect during a lockdown. It has to go somewhere and if it can't it starts to die out. Admittedly that would only really work with a proper lockdown. Ours is very halfhearted.

Some of those desperate for an early end to lockdown are probably people living in cities. I've come around to their way of thinking. As soon as it's officially lifted I'm off to the countryside where I'll stay for the second wave and next lockdown. I WFH so there's no obstacle. It's going to be much nicer having fresh rural area during lockdown. I've been properly socially distancing and won't be bringing any "city germs". Can't speak for others who'll do the same as me...

I hope they do do mass testing and contact tracing. But we are doing a bit arse about face. Should have done it when we had hardly any cases not thousands and thousands.

I wonder how long it will be before we can implement this strategy. And in the meantime stay locked down?

Also, on another thread many said they wouldn’t download any app for contact tracing. I would be happy to but many wouldn’t.

Theluggage15 - 2000 excess deaths per week currently? of non-covid deaths? I don't think so. That is completely contrary to what the stats show. The Telegraph is telling porkies. (Well, there's a surprise.)

Africa are on a far stricter lockdown than us and have been for around the same time as us, even though they didn't have many cases

No one knows how many are dying in townships and the illegal camps. Not just from covid but from having no food

Well south africa anyway

MarginalGain - it would have been in the region of 500,000 deaths had we not locked down, according to the Imperial College study.

That should be reduced somewhat by the lockdown, but given that total deaths are already over 40,000 and it's still very early days, I see no reason why you think hundreds of thousands of deaths are impossible if we end the lockdown now.

It's not rocket science to figure out that if you end the lockdown before a proper test, track and quarantine strategy and/or a vaccine and/or a cure are in place, we will end up with the hundreds of thousands of deaths. Lockdown has delayed them but not prevented them.

It's likely that no more than 13-25% maximum of our population has been infected so far (looking at figures from other countries - the highest figure was from NYC, but I suspect the UK's figures would be far lower as we don't all live so close).

So we are nowhere near herd immunity - if such a thing were even to exist. Recent studies suggest those previously infected can be reinfected.

There is no sense in ending lockdown now, except for those keen to see high numbers of infections and deaths soon.

Is that you, Dominic Cummings?

20k deaths which was best case scenario and we just passed that?

Are we even 15 percent through this pandemic?

@wave exactly

I agree Ruth the general sentiment that lockdown gradually needs to be relaxed because if the economy. I doubt the reliability however of the statement that more deaths will happen as a result of lockdown that from corona though - but that's a minor point. The same to the economy, to employment, education and families will be too huge. We will have to live with people dying from corona on an ongoing basis. And there may well be an upsurge of cases with the easing.

However I can't quite work out how contact tracing will work now. We have lost track and we will have to test literally the whole population to know who has had it or not had it.

@effingterrified. The telegraph are not saying it, it comes from a report by a company called Edge Health who provide data to NHS trusts. No idea why you don’t think it’s true, doctors have been worrying about this since the beginning.