Today I feel incredibly angry

[awaywiththecircus]

I’m feeling incredibly selfish. My family luckily are all fit and well. If we catch CV we will in all likelihood be I’ll for a few days at worst. I see the impact this is having on us and feel incredibly angry. My dc should be at school, socialising, having fun. DH and I should be at work keeping a stable roof over our heads. But obviously it’s all gone to shit.
And all the fit people who are insisting they are going to stay locked up at home until there’s a vaccinationFFS.
Even my close friend with a shielded dc is feeling that we have massively overacted to this when weighing up the collateral damage we are causing. I know I’ll get flamed but I’m truly at the end of my tether.

@alittleprivacy I’m sorry you’ve been so ill. But it’s people like you and that ridiculous post on the BBC today about youngish people who ‘think’ they have been so ill because of cv that are partly to blame for the levels of hysteria in the under 50s. As the doctor said, other viruses also frequently cause people to be very ill and can cause fatigue for a long time afterwards. The people on bbc hadn’t even been tested for CV! Talk about scaremongering.

If you were about to do a bungee jump and then told you there was a 3% chance that the rope would snap and you would plummet to to your death, would you still do it?
Or how about you had a choice of 100 tablets, 3 of which would cause a lingering horrible death, would you take one?
Or how about you don't do either of those options, you just stay at home and watch tv on the sofa instead.

@LilacTree1 why do you think I have a 3% chance of dying from CV?

OP you are getting two posters with similar names muddled.

It’s not a 3% chance though. The most recent research is that for the population as a whole it is 0.5% with that heavily heavily skewed to the over 70s.

For people under 40, the risk is close to zero. So yes, I would happily have my kids and I resume normal life as against a 100% certainty that their futures are messed up. And that increases by the day.

For my dad - I’d rather be stayed home, though it’s up to him as he is well aware that he has few remaining healthy years.

I was in favour of lockdown to get things under control. They now are so we should go out and wear face masks etc

@LavenderLilacTree I really do not want my children to pay for you to stay on the sofa.

@LavenderLilacTree Why do you think your children will die? How old are you children? Have you seen the ONS stats for the week ended 24 April? Once again, they show that no under 15’s have died if the virus.

“Economic damage on this scale would have happened without the lock down.”

Yep...

The industry I’m in was seeing a huge drop in customers before lockdown and is completely inoperable with any social distancing measures in place at all.

The hospitality trade is stuffed, they’re not profitable without the volume of custom - so their suppliers too, and trades that rely on fitting and repairing their equipment...

I’m sure there’s industries I know nothing about where most of the sector is also going to go under.

Then add in the people bit at risk of dying being off work for a month or so ill...

The economy will not recover just because restrictions are lifted.

Not at risk that should say

I’m aware of the risks and would be more than happy to take my chances

But what about those you come into contact with? Are they equally taking their chances.

A very limited easing of restrictions is fine but I think a lockdown again as soon as the weather changes would be the way to go.

It will be interesting to see if there is a spike a couple of weeks from now as there are more people out and a lot seem to have forgot about social distancing.

Fwiw we are all on UC.

@LavenderLilacTree you missed the 3 out of 100 skittles analogy ... must try harder ...

It’s nowhere near 3% risk of death - it’s ~0.5% chance of death for people who are actually infected and that’s currently still a pretty tiny percentage of the population. The messaging from the government has led to millions of people being utterly terrified to leave their houses, convinced that if they’re within a few feet of another person outside for a couple of seconds then THEY'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO DIE ... all rationality has gone.

We all live with risks every day but for most of them we a) accept there’s a risk and do whatever it is anyway (smoking fits into this category) or b) modify our behaviour so that the thing we want to do is less dangerous (driving fits into this - we accept rules which mitigate our risk from driving but we don’t ban driving outright just in case ‘it might save one life!’)

How are the posters who are bleaching their shopping possibly going to cope with anything like normal life?

@LavenderLilacTree 3% chance of dying 🤦‍♀️. Maybe if you are aged 80 with an existing illness. It’s nowhere near that for younger people. Get a grip!

Inhumane - fixed that for you.

Possibly... but considering the vast majority of humans don't sell their homes and donate all proceeds to solving starvation then the word "inhumane" kinda loses it's meaning, I think. Surely "human" is what the vast majority humans do?

But I look forward to hearing from you after the crisis if you decide to do something like this fuck your children's home, eh? Who cares? Clearly anyone who does care is just selfish.

“Economic damage on this scale would have happened without the lock down.”

Yep. Sweden. www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

But what about those you come into contact with? Are they equally taking their chances.

If they're not happy with 2m distancing and frequent hand washing they can choose to wear a mask.

If they're still not happy they can stay at home.

It's only "sitting on the sofa and watching TV" isn't it? Why can't they stay at home?

All this talk of personal risk and whether we as individuals would or wouldn't take it is fairly irrelevant to lockdown. The govt approach to lockdown is not about individuals.

They aren't just doing this lockdown to save lives, they are doing it because they consider the alternative to be an exponential growth in illness and death that will itself cripple society and the economy. As soon as the R rate and case numbers tip the balance to a point where they can start to reopen while hoping to avoid that exponential growth and damage, they will. We are all at the mercy of that wider perspective.

So if a point comes in the process where you would rather take your chances but it doesn't fit the policy, you won't have much traction. And if a point comes in the process where you would like govt support in staying off work, or keeping your child off school, but the policy says otherwise, that support won't be there. Individual risk tolerance and desires just don't come into it.

All this talk of personal risk and whether we as individuals would or wouldn't take it is fairly irrelevant to lockdown.

Hmm I agree with the sentiment but I think the government are largely being lead by public opinion on this. They claim "science", but I'm not convinced.

G - Herd Immunity
P - Outcry
G - Okay social distancing
P - Close schools!!!
G - Okay close schools
P - Lockdown!!!!!!!
G - Okay lets lockdown. Publishes rules. No mixing of households.
P - What about two parent families?
G - Okay to clarify they're the exception but not two household families.
P - People should be allowed to travel to exercise
G - Okay you can travel to exercise

I could go on. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

I suspect that as soon as the tide starts to turn on public opinion, so will the rules. They're making them up as they go along - many of which defy any logic or reasoning.

So technically if enough people decided to break lockdown tomorrow there isn't a lot they could do about it.

The people planning to stay locked down until there is a vaccine must be able to work from home and getting paid as usual so must be loving lockdown. Don't think some people realise that a lot of people have lost jobs/ on furlough and need to get back to normal or risk losing their homes etc.... Some people just see what will benefit them most.

I want lockdown to end. Not interested in staying locked up and see the economy ruined for everyone long term.

My husband is able to work normally now and is not furlonged. But parts of his work involve visiting customers to bring in new business. If this goes on for longer can his job keep losing new revenue and continue to pay my husband? Businesses like this need to get back to normal, this is unsustainable forever. People going on about staying in lockdown are not seeing further than their little bubble.

We don't know what the risk of death would be in a situation where the virus was allowed to burn itself out through a natural peak. Nowhere in the world has yet decided to find out. It's safe to say it would be much higher than the current risk, due to the absence of healthcare and likely damage to food and power supplies. Also of course those things would mean a much higher death toll from non covid conditions during this time.

It's been really heartening to see some people saying that since they are fit and well, this has made them reflect on how lucky they have been so far, not to be 'locked down' through no fault of their own by illness or injury. Or that since they have been able to work from home, it's made them reflect on how lucky they are not be in minimum wage jobs where they have high exposure to the public. I hope that if there is anything positive to search for in the wreckage of this disaster, it will be more empathy for and action to improve the lives of others as well as ourselves.

@LavenderLilacTree staying inside might not be a hardship for YOU but it is for those of us who need to leave our homes to do our jobs. Furlough money isn't going to last forever and we need to get the economy up and rolling again.

@blockyy

Yes, that is a good point. Very well made! I worry about that. I think they are too influenced by it, but they also know that if people do just decide to go 'back to normal' they will quickly be begging for the govt to help them.

@RunningAwaywiththeCircus

Yes, I know. It's awful. I know they are saying all cause mortality is the big tell, it is..but some of those who missing treatment now will probably survive but with lower quality of life or with lower life expectancy than they could have had with treatment, and so not be recognised by the mortality stats of the next year or so. I think the calculation was that in an unmitigated growth of the virus these people would also get no health care. I agree they need to be an immediate priority right now. No easing of social lives should be made at the cost of case numbers rising to a point where the NHS has to go back to closing all those non covid parts.

I think lockdown was, or at least has become, not just about easing pressure on the NHS during the first peak, but about getting R and case numbers low enough to allow us to open up much more. Hoping to get the headroom to reopen schools etc without immediately surging back over one.