Coronaphobia - people just have to get a grip

[wakeupitsabeautifulmorning]

I'm really worried that irrational fears are going to absolutely ruin the country as well as putting people at massive risk of dying from other things or developing mental health. And God knows what parents with it will do to their dc's mental health and development (keeping dc off school until there's a vaccination etc.)

@brassbrass I agree with the other two people who mentioned the really nasty background of the word 'hysteria'. It's a really objectionable word to use when there are plenty of others.

A few years back I discovered, when told, that the word 'cretin' (which I'd just thought was vaguely negative, and had no idea of the connotations) was a derogatory word with a horrible history. From that moment I've never used it again.

It's not derailing or stopping people use language to point out that it does still have a really misogynistic vibe. If that's what you want to convey with it, fine, but if you don't then another word that has no baggage is a lot more suitable for communicating your message because then anyone reading/listening isn't inwardly questioning your implications.

Problem is duffel you could say that about a lot of words not as obvious as something like 'cretin'. And in the scheme of things I don't mind but MN is rubbish at moderating it.

I was interested to compare the reaction to this current pandemic and that of 1968/9 which is within mine and many others memory.
I was 21 at the time and do not remember any panic/shutdown but then remembered that times were differant - lower population so the NHS could cope - GPs were available - no social media - the post war generation mostly just got on with things - oh and most women with small children did not work so schools being open did not impact the economy.
see this reprise of what happened.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/02/britain-handled-1968-flu-epidemic-shutdown-avoided-second-wave/
a vaccination was found fortunately but the stark figure is that 80,000 died in the UK out of a much smaller population.

Does anyone have the ons data that only 56 people under 40 have died in total?
This is the only data i can find but its only for a week

Thank you @ToffeeYoghurt.

Thank you @HuaShan  I hope your friend and colleagues are ok

I dont fear the virus as such, I fear the way it's being handled.

Indeed @EastMidsMumOf1 this is a huge part of the problem. Our death rates are so high because it's being so badly handled in every way.

Am I being dumb? Are people seriously advocating letting the over 40s die from this so they can 'get back to normal'?

I think some are @DetroitTheTourist along with anyone with any health conditions.

Oh and anyone under 40 is invincible...

Selfish oafs. It's hurting fit young people too, and kids. Why do they think it's not going to be them or theirs?

FWIW (probably not much), I don't know a single person who has had it. Just over 200 people have been confirmed as having it where I live, and there have been 20 or so deaths of people "with Covid 19" (though not necessariy "of Covid 19").

I'm 52, btw, and would gladly take my chances if it means that my children (all 16 plus) can have their lives back.

@celan they're hardly testing anyone, it'll be way more than 200 cases!

@DetroitTheTourist and @SimpleKindofLife no I dont think that is what people are saying at all.

My take is that once lockdown has successfully pushed R0 under 1 and some kind of contact tracing and testing regime is in place people need to start getting back into the world. Particularly those who are younger because the risks are actually fairly low for the under 40s. That is a fact borne out by data from all countries. And the economy gets restarted to protect those who are more at risk.

In order to do so I think there needs to be an overall realisation that if you are fit and healthy and fairly young the risk of it being you is actually fairly small (in a controlled containment of the R0 under 1) and if we dont get control over this the risks will start coming from non Covid related things

@Jrobhatch29 England has 161 deaths under 40 according to this

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

0.77% of the total

Celan, I thought us here in the USA had the Monopoly on idiocy bargining that won't change anything. People will die AND noone will get normal life back.

I'm sorry to hear you don't care much for your life, but you can infect others, and you have no right to do that. Who is to say one of your precious kids won't be the ones to get a huge viral load and end up, heaven forbid, dying. Is it only ok, if it's other people? When your humanity?

I am not in a risk group but still much prefer not contracting Covid-19 since nothing is known about the long term effects.

Also, how would it practically work to separate the under-40s from the the over-40s?

If you want to get a grip and go out and about as before, be my guest.

My husband will very likely die if he contracts this illness and I’d quite like to keep my two vulnerable, adult children safe too so we’ll be observing all of the current restrictions until there’s a vaccine or a treatment that significantly reduces the impact, if it’s all the same to you.
(I’m mindful that not everyone has that luxury but we can all only do the best for our families.)

@chillipeanuts it’s great that you can make that choice for your family but it does rely on quite a lot of the rest of the population not doing so.

It isn’t possible for the entire population to remain locked away indefinitely or even for a significant majority to do so.

When the lockdown is lifted, and it will be in the next few weeks, we are going to have to find a way for the majority of people to start moving around in society again. I am not advocating an early lifting of the lockdown but it won’t stay in place until a vaccine and for the majority it won’t be possible to refuse to engage with the world once the lockdown is lifted.

@Quartz2208 yes thats the info i have! I cant find anything that says its only 56. And its out of date now too

@chillipeanuts you are right it is best for you but Sunshinegirl82 is right the only way you will be able to go that at some point when they are confident R0 can be maintained under 1 for those who the risks are low are going to have to go out and get everything started otherwise the repercussions will be high

KEeping people safe from June onwards will mean lifting this lockdown otherwise we just wont be able too

Today 19:56 Sunshinegirl82

@chillipeanuts it’s great that you can make that choice for your family but it does rely on quite a lot of the rest of the population not doing so.“

Why? Just because they’re vulnerable, doesn’t mean they don’t work. My husband, in particular, works from home in a critical role, where countless people rely on him and his expertise. It’s not his fault he has to shield. We don’t rely on the state in any way.
We do rely on delivery drivers and the local coubcil, to whom I am immensely grateful. I can’t quite believe people are potentially risking their lives for us.

As I already said, I’m very mindful that not everyone is in the position we are, able to isolate. As I also said, we can all only do what we think is best for our families.

But saying we all need to “get a grip” is ill-educated and insulting.

Well exactly, delivery drivers, council workers, broadband, water, gas, electricity, everyone involved in the supermarket supply chain, police officers, emergency service workers, bus drivers, train drivers, tube drivers, journalists, prison staff etc etc

After lockdown it will be teachers, nursery workers, shop staff, those who work in manufacturing, warehousing, the court system, road maintenance, cleaning staff, etc

The economy has to start to function at something approaching normality. Some people will be able to stay at home and they will be able to do so because others are choosing not to and are keeping society ticking over.

If everyone just said, no way, I’ll stay in until there is a vaccine thanks! The country would collapse within days. Once new case numbers are down and the R level can be kept low using track and trace and some limited ongoing social distancing the risks to the majority will not be significant.

Obviously if you have a very high individual risk profile that will need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Why is he very likely to die - as far as I can tell nothing means even 50/50 chance of dying if you get it?

Sorry to be personal its just that things such as very likely to die is part of what the OP is trying to say that we see all of this information and we turn it into more risk.

What Sunshinegirl82 is saying is that if everyone isolated there would be nothing left - for those who the risk is small once it is R0 is under 1 things are going to have to get restarted

Economy over peoples lives. That says it all really. Im poor, really poor, and I sure ain't dying for some rich person's stocks and shares prices. It's grotesque.

the economy is peoples lives

He has an extremely rare genetic condition that has seen him in hospital for prolonged periods twice in the past 3 years with kidney failure, sepsis and encephalitis, in critical care and not expected to survive the first tine. Additionally, diabetes, bronchiecstasis, asthma, obstructive sleep apnoea and in the over 60s age group.

You’re right, he might not die, but would you risk it if you had the option?