Would you be happy to lock down for the next two years?

[BirdieFriendReturns]

If the government restrictions stayed in place?

So until May 2022.

Thank you for that article @PissOffStayAtHomeDogMum. The managerial lie "the only solution is to avoid all risks" sounds awfully familiar. It has echoes of "we must go to war because there are weapons of mass destruction". The orator behind that is the reason I am hard pressed to believe anything that politicians say: they cry wolf all the time. This beloved lockdown "solution" is very likely to produce more problems than it solves. The madness has gone on more than long enough, it's no longer for the greater good, and needs to end. I haven't forgotten that Saint Boris (patron saint of clowns) said "we can turn this virus around in twelve weeks". Woe betide him if lockdown lasts longer than that.

I'd be prepared to make changes to my of life like home schooling and working from home, even though it's a nightmare, for two years. I could live without restaurants and bars for two years. But I can't really contemplate two years without any friends for me or the children and not seeing my family who live abroad. That would be dreadful.

In terms of risk of death this is the new data from PHE/Cambridge uni modelling of death rates by age.

25 to 44 - 0.018%
45 to 64 - 0.28%
65 to 74 - 1.8%

75 - 16%

This is a truly terrible disease for the elderly.

This is a truly terrible disease for the elderly.

Or, it can be. It’s still over 80% chance of survival. Most illnesses are worse for the elderly than anyone else. It doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for the rest of society to grind to a halt for years on end.

Those rates really do indicate that there's an argument for shielding the vulnerable/elderly and increasing the freedoms for others to work. Those at risk should be prioritised for early vaccination, as that becomes available. I think some social distancing, face covering and hygiene measures are important to keep the R down- but eternal lockdown for everyone does not make sense to me, given those figures.

No way. From the beginning, I think the whole exercise is some weird economic new world order. It relies on human fear and people acting in a certain way given a particular environment...I do lockdown but don’t ‘believe’ in it at all!

No

Yes agree with that @PissOffStayAtHomeDogMum...

Not a fucking chance.

I was very compliant but I’m starting to feel angry and cynical about it all.

Fair enough to have these measures in the short term but all this talk of social distancing being the ‘new normal’ until successful treatment or a vaccine is fucking insane. I’m an introvert and normally happy to avoid excessive social contact so I can only imagine how the social extroverts out there feel about it all.

Fuck that. Not a chance.

The thing is, I ‘knew’ this right from the start but there is just no way anyone would accept your thoughts so you just comply and the government (and those above!) know this. The whole global aspect of it is again just too neat...

The managerial lie "the only solution is to avoid all risks" sounds awfully familiar.

That's not the managerial lie - at the moment it's the union's lying mantra.

But are those figures only low for the under 75s because of the lockdown? What would they look like if it was business as usual for all?

The over 75 group are probably mostly people who caught Covid whilst in hospital or care homes - the over 75s are of course the most likely to be in hospitals and care homes in the first place and those places are where it appears to have spread like wildfire. They couldn't "shield" because they were effectively trapped, surrounded by people with Covid!

So, the statistics may not be anything like a true representation of how the general population would be affected without a lockdown or social distancing. That's why it's so important to come out of lockdown VERY slowly whilst maintaining social distancing, just so we can see how rapidly Covid comes back, and see the true effects on the general population.

But are those figures only low for the under 75s because of the lockdown?

The figures are for people who actually catch it so unrelated to lockdown.

But are those figures only low for the under 75s because of the lockdown?

Its a % of people who actually get it, so lockdown is largely irrelevant in that scenario. If there was no lockdown then the actual numbers would rise, but the % would stay roughly the same.

Yes, no problem.
I have plenty to do and a good imagination, and wouldn't work for an employer, anyway.

Lockdown will reduce the number who get it but not how likely you are to die if you do get it ... until you get to the point where (covid) health services are overwhelmed which didn’t happen in the UK. That’s about health provision & funding which also brings up the issue of everyone else who needs treatment for non covid conditions & can’t get it.

I have plenty to do and a good imagination, and wouldn't work for an employer, anyway

Good job not everyone thinks like you Devlesko as you’d have no Dr’s, nurses, refuse collectors, food shops... not much of anything really. But at least you’d have your imagination.

Its worth bearing in mind that there isn’t much community transmission now - the R rate is being driven by care homes & hospitals.

Some elements of social distancing can be given up pretty quickly/easily. Such as the arbitrary 2 metre rule. You're pretty safe walking past someone coming in the opposite direction at less than 2 metres, as long as they don't cough, sneeze or spit as they pass. But if they did that, even if you were more than 2 metres, you'd be at risk. We need to keep with a mindset of simply NOT coughing, sneezing, spitting near others at all and to catch it in a tissue/hankie or arm if you can't help it. People need to stop going to work, going shopping, etc if they have symptoms of flu/colds/covid etc rather than playing the martyr and going about sneezing over everyone and everything. Same with hand washing - we should have been doing it regularly throughout the day, before eating, after using the loo, anyway - and we need to continue doing that, Covid or not. I think we need to move to a new model of respecting people's personal space, i.e. a "new normal" of not automatically shaking hands, not hugging/kissing people you hardly know, not almost touching others in queues, not touching on public transport etc. None of that will ruin peoples' lives and will enable social gatherings etc to re-open again. A premier league football match, or Aintree Races, or Glastonbury simply can't happen with existing 2m social distancing in place. BUT, they could happen if people behaved in a more respectable, more hygenic, manner. Remember before the lockdown, Cheltenham Races and Liverpool football went ahead because it was assumed that people would respect the guidance re self-isolation with symptoms, more hand washing, etc etc - sadly people didn't and that's what led to the lockdown and the extreme measures. To get back to any kind of normality, people need to behave responsibly and take personal precautions - the more people who do it, the more socially unacceptable it will become to not wash your hands after the loo or to open a bag of crisps without washing your hands, or to go to work sneezing everywhere, or make you out to be weird if you don't want to shake someone's hand!

Its a % of people who actually get it, so lockdown is largely irrelevant in that scenario. If there was no lockdown then the actual numbers would rise, but the % would stay roughly the same.

No. The over 75s were more likely to be in hospital or care homes anyway, so lockdown wouldn't really affect those - they were "locked down" anyway and probably at higher risk due to being in a risky place. They wouldn't have been going out to pubs, clubs, socialising, work, shopping, etc. if they were already "locked down" in a care home or hospital ward.

Life has changed more for the under 75s who would have otherwise been out and about doing things, like going to work, shopping, socialising, etc., so the lockdown has drastically changed their lives.

So, basically, the lockdown has changed the lives of the under 75s far more than those over 75. And the under 75s weren't locked down surrounded with others already with Covid!

Yes, no problem.
I have plenty to do and a good imagination, and wouldn't work for an employer, anyway.

How does your 'good imagination' consider a world with no taxes to pay for basic services (incl the NHS), no real education for children, no medical care other than for Covid, massive unemployment, soaring rates of domestic abuse and mental health issues, the elderly isolated, the young seeing their futures slip away from them?

So, basically, the lockdown has changed the lives of the under 75s far more than those over 75. And the under 75s weren't locked down surrounded with others already with Covid!

Perhaps, but this doesn't have any bearing on the fatality percentages. Apologies if that's not what you're saying though.

No.
I want my son to go back to university and enjoy student life - going out, playing sports, not working online from home.

I want to spend time with other family members and friends. My mum is 85 and not as well as she was even a couple of years ago, so chances are she may die within the next few years anyway, so I don't want the rest of her life to be cooped up inside not seeing anyone.

I want to get on with working properly.