‘We are all going to get it eventually’ nonsense

[Redolent]

Why do people keep repeating this as though it’s a statement of fact? It’s not. This approach aka gradual herd immunity would lead to 100,000’s of deaths over time and was clearly been rejected by the government in March.

The alternative recommended by WHO and soon to be followed in the UK is ‘test test test’, contract tracing, quarantining. The point is to get the R sufficiently low so as to make that possible.

The countries and regions with the lowest death rates are those that have pursued relentless community testing.

‘Living with the virus’ doesn’t mean making your peace with the fact that we’re all going to get it. It means accepting that we’ll be treading the line between social distancing measures and economic/ social stability for some time.

[eurochick]

Track and trace is a very new policy. Before that it was flatten the curve, which suggests that the same number of people would get it as if nothing was done, just over a longer time. So not everyone getting it, but plenty. Just not all at once.

[LangClegsInSpace]

OP, I think people (including myself) have said that because they don’t trust the government to test and contact trace.

In terms of contact tracing it's not just up to the government it's up to all of us. I don't mean everybody should download the app. The app will be useful if enough people use it but it will never be the whole answer and there are valid data protection concerns.

One very simple thing we could all be doing now is just keeping a note of where we go and when. What time and day did you go in which supermarket and what time did you leave? What time did you go out exercising and what route did you take? If you have to take public transport which bus or train did you catch? To be effective the bulk of contact tracing will need to be done by human beings and you'll be giving them a head start if you can provide a reasonably accurate basic itinerary for the last 14 days.

[user1471453601]

@eeeyoresmiles, an intelligent and well thought through post. Thank you

[pontypridd]

OP, I think people (including myself) have said that because they don’t trust the government to test and contact trace.

I think they’re aiming for herd immunity which probably doesn’t exist and making it look like they care.

With their callousness or incompetence. Whichever. We do all stand a very high chance of catching this virus in the near future.

[Sunshinegirl82]

The reason people think this is because the messaging from the government has been poor. The message that was originally delivered was that we needed to flatten the curve to prevent the nhs being overwhelmed. There was a bit of a mention of herd immunity too. The impression given was that we would all get it but we couldn’t get it all at once.

Then we switched to lots of talk about how it was absolutely, definitely too early to even start to think about anything post lockdown (whilst BJ was unwell and nobody could really make any decisions).

As soon as BJ was back we’ve immediately swung into exit talk and it’s pretty clear that the plan is essentially one of mass suppression.

That has actually been fairly obvious for weeks (otherwise they wouldn’t have started with the app and recruiting the contact tracers) but because they refused point blank to discuss anything the message hadn’t got across.

I suspect as the app/contract tracing/end to lockdown plan becomes clearer this week more people will shift their thinking.

[user1471448556]

Agree OP. I want to avoid it for as long as poss.

[DianneWhatcock]

Totally agree OP and thanks for posting

[LilyPond2]

Well said OP!

[Servers]

I guess it depends, if it is found that vaccinations are not effective then realistically over the course of the next few decades a load of us will get it. However, people that seem to be keen to get it to 'get it over with as we are all going to get it' and using it as an excuse to do whatever are next level stupid.

[LangClegsInSpace]

They are just starting to talk about possibly quarantining people arriving in the UK. Grant Shapps was discussing it on Marr this morning.

[nellodee]

Unfortunately, at a global level, Pandora's box is well and truly open on this one. We are never going to be able to eradicate this completely.

What I find concerning is that whilst we have all this talk about opening schools or not, we don't have the same amount of conversation going on about restricting people coming into this country. I haven't heard any discussion about imposing quarantines. Once we get our cases low (and I'm sure that we can and will) we need to be able to trace cases effectively and we can't do that unless we are controlling people on entry. I've see very little about plans for this. Maybe I'm just missing them. But it seems like there's very little point getting our internal cases down if we're just going to keep importing them.

[LangClegsInSpace]

Mustbetimeforachange MERS and SARS did not just fade away!

SARS was eradicated through a process of case finding, isolation, contact tracing and quarantine.

MERS has not yet been completely eradicated but outbreaks are contained by exactly the same methods.

[LangClegsInSpace]

Yes, thank you OP!

I watch the WHO press conferences and the strategy they outline for containing this virus makes perfect sense. Then I come on here and everyone seems completely stuck on lockdown vs we all get it, as if there are no other options until we have a vaccine, and I feel like I'm going mad.

Even on this thread, most people seem to have missed the most important part of your post:

The alternative recommended by WHO and soon to be followed in the UK is ‘test test test’, contract tracing, quarantining.

It's not just the number of tests, it's who we test and what we do once we know someone has it.

[Stellamboscha]

Loads of people I know have already had it -none severe and none hospitalised. Had been overhyped to scare the population into staying indoors and the message has been too successful so people are now terrified and want to cower under their duvet still the end of time.

[eeeyoresmiles]

Even if in five years time this virus is circulating and many more people have been exposed to it, there's a world of difference between eventually reaching that state and rushing into it over the course of a few months. There's so much we can still learn about it and about the illness it causes.

Even six months from now treatment protocols will be more refined so more people recover, we'll know better what the signs are of someone's condition worsening - it's not the case that until we've got a vaccine/miracle drug we might as well have nothing. Time is not just useful for reducing the load on the NHS - it gives us vital information.

We have nothing to lose by trying as hard as we can to reduce transmission and have as few people as possible catch it. Yes we have to live with a risk of getting it, but it's a mistake to think we somehow need people to get it - we really don't. Without knowing how long immunity lasts, we can't even know how useful people who've already had it are as 'firebreaks' in the community to stop transmission.

Being afraid of catching this virus is appropriate and useful. What we want ASAP is a situation in which we're all appropriately afraid of the virus (so we're careful), but not of going outside and going to work or going shopping. The way we achieve that is to work really really hard collectively at keeping the amount of virus out there very low (by testing, tracking, quarantining, personal behaviours etc.).

The collective effort involved in all the testing, tracking, quarantining, changing business and personal behaviours is considerable, but much better than either (a) another lockdown or (b) uncontrolled spread of the illness (which also fucks up the economy). No one is going to go to that collective effort though, if people are going round saying "we'll all get it eventually anyway". It's just not true, and it's not what we want - the fewer people who go through this illness at this early stage the better.

[nellodee]

Completely agree. It also gets me when people say, the aim isn't to save lives, it's to stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. You can't achieve one without achieving the other, even if you wanted to.

Either cases go up and up and the NHS gets overwhelmed. Or they go down and down and we practically eradicate it. Or we somehow manage to walk an absolute tightrope of perfect equilibrium and cases remains totally steady. Since we're not planning for the first scenario, we're not intending on everyone getting it.

[ViVii]

Thanks OP.

I for one am tired of people saying we're all going to get it, statements like that can be very damaging for individuals with fragile mental health and will terrify people.

[Hadenoughfornow]

It's a bit like the government have conscripted people into a war. That most other countries avoided

We still need to be rational about this even if we dislike and mistrust the govt.

We do not know what the long term outcome will be for any country.

We just need to hope that the actions being taken in our country are the best for us.

And that does include the balance that needs to be made between health and economy.

[Derbygerbil]

Add to that the fact that they are at least aiming to keep R low and supressed until we hopefully do have a vaccine and the idea that we are all going to get it is very odd.

Yes, the plan seems to be to open up as much as possible over time whilst keeping R0 below zero. This isn’t consistent with developing herd immunity. The hope seems to be through a combination of moderated shielding and social distancing, widespread contact tracing and testing, we can get most of the economy back whilst doing this. We accept some economic pain and social inconvenience as a price for 100,000s
not dying... a compromise that sits between “let it rip” and “lockdown”. We couldn’t do this in March - nowhere could - but hopefully we will in a month or so. This relies on a vaccine in a year or so, as it’s not sustainable forever!

[Inkpaperstars]

Yes that could be what he meant Derby. He didn't really elaborate.

Herd immunity through vaccination is obviously the current best hope.

[Keepdistance]

It's a bit like the government have conscripted people into a war. That most other countries avoided. But we are stuck in a warzone. (With an awful general).
People sent over the top with no gas masks on. But they wont wait for the supply to arrive or in fact buy more and won t let people use them . They wont track where the enemy is or try to stop the enemy entering the country.

[Derbygerbil]

Yes, agreed. Also, in Chris Whitty's recent covid lecture for Gresham College he said that over the course of the epidemic, even without a vaccine, a high proportion will not become infected.

What Chris Whitty said is consistent with herd immunity... Depending on how infectious Covid is, herd immunity is reckoned to be between 60-80% of the population... That would mean 20-40% wouldn’t catch it - which would be a high proportion.

[Pebble21uk]

Completely agree OP... I think so many people on here are just using the 'we're all going to get it so get on with it, get a grip etc' mantra as an excuse to end lockdown asap and go back to 'normal', whatever the consequences.
I really think a lot of people just can't comprehend that something can interrupt their lives because we live in a modern, western nation where there is no precedent in living memory.

[mac12]

The "we're all going to get it anyway" line is so defeatist, like we should accept a new and unknown risk in our population. There's increasing evidence of long term health impacts - compromised lung function, kidney failure, chronic fatigue, heart damage and neurological issues. This was also seen with SARS. The existing endemic coronaviruses are increasingly linked with MS and Parkinsons. COVID-19 may not kill most of us now...but what about the longer term health risks?
We just don't know enough about it yet, new research is coming out all the time - I think our public health officials and governments should err on the side of extreme caution until we know more. And no, that doesn't mean an economy-wrecking extension of the lockdown but a complete commitment to test, trace and isolate, wit health checks and quarantines at ports/airports - which is what we should have done from the very beginning.

[Keepdistance]

I think it's because gov messaging has been very confusing

• Shield

-vulnerable practise stringent social distsncing.
-over 70 stay in.

But then we wont close schools
We will reopen schools.
We wont mandate masks
Go out for walks but stay apart.

Parliament hiding away at home and people wfh.

It is confusing because basically they want the workers out there working even if it kills them but they want to be hiding themselves. And i agree some people need to keep things running but others are just about bosses making money.
Almost all other countries are trying to keep the deaths to a minimum.