I'm finding the reaction to covid utterly bizarre

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

If anyone had told me that healthy, fit people would willingly put their livelihoods at risk and deny their children an education for months on end, that they would send the country into recession putting healthcare, education and public services at risk for years and years to come to avoid getting a disease that had a very very small chance of killing them I wouldn't have believed it. If you'd said people would be afraid to talk to their healthy siblings I wouldn't have believed it.

I had measles in the 1980s as small child - the vaccination programme where I lived was slow to get off the ground - and it nearly killed me. In 1980 2.6 million people worldwide died of measles, a very large proportion of them children. No one ever considered a lockdown, it was never even suggested.

I think all the analysis of this situation in the coming years won't be about the pandemic, but about the contagion of fear that made people so terrified of something that wasn't a real threat to them that they created huge, long-lasting, in some cases devastating problems for themselves, problems that were nothing to do with their virus and everything to do with their reaction to the virus.

OP I admire your tenacity but the people who don't share your opinion are as impervious to different points of view as those of us on the other side of the Brexit vote. If anyone had any interest in facts rather than what they read in the papers, they wouldn't think they were about to die if they catch it as healthy 45 year olds.

Why do people keep saying that lockdown is about preventing infection while a vaccine is being developed? It is not and the government has never said it was for that purpose. A vaccine, if it's available, will likely take at least another six months, if not another 12-18 months. Locking down for that long is just not possible. The fact remains that you can follow every single 'rule' now, lose your job, prevent your children from going to school and still catch covid later this year, or next year.

Not to mention that increasing numbers of children are shown to be suffering from the Kawasaki-like complication post Covid, even if they’ve shown mild or no symptoms initially. Because it’s such a new illness no one realises originally that there is a link. And it can show up a good 4 weeks post infection .
But by all means, let’s send them all to school and see how it pans out.

Well, I have read the whole thread.

My thoughts?

Well, they swing from one side of the argument to the other on a regular basis.

On a personal level, knowing that people can be asymptomatic therefore unwitting spreaders informs my behaviour. I am a relatively healthy 51 year old and not fearful of catching it myself - I have been taking Vitamin D Supplements and following lockdown rules, partly motivated by concern at unwittingly spreading the virus and partly because I don't want the aggro that being "caught" breaching the rules would cause.

As the owner of a non-essential shop (which was surviving precariously even before any of this) of course I have concerns about the economy - I also am concerned about those in less than ideal situations that being in lockdown is likely to have exacerbated.

Having cared directly for my Mum who died three weeks ago from cancer I experienced directly the difficulties that the virus caused in accessing what up until then been routine palliative care - rabid GP receptionists gatekeeping for the so busy and beleagured HCPs and contradicting the instructions given over the phone in person up to having to shout at one to sort out a testing debacle which may have proved crucial to managing my Mum's decline. I'm not usually shouty or impolite and I felt terrible pangs of guilt alongside my rage.

In my area, population is around 800,000 and deaths have been under 300 last time I checked. Part of me thinks the lockdown is being managed badly, part of me can't see many options while this novel virus is still being far from understood. The sudden emergence of the syndrome affecting children is a concern - thankfully cases are low so far, but an escalation would be terrible.

I am and am not living in fear - it's an odd state of mind to be in.

I am of course recently bereaved, and already see some parallels between the stages of grief and the attitudes to lockdown and the virus. Denial. anger and bargaining spring to mind as the phases accurately represented by many comments here, and I think that's probably natural given that we have been "bereaved" of a lifestyle and sense of stability that has underpinned our existence for the last 40 or so years.

When it comes to retail, due to the boom of online services, we were being encouraged to offer an "experience" rather than just handing over paid for goods with a helpful smile - that's going to be pretty difficult with social distancing so it's likely every retailer will just go online - not that people are going to have much in the way of disposable income for things like incense and alternative clothing and lifestyle accessories (which is what I deal in). And I can understand that and will have to adapt in some way.

Questioning people's resilience and criticising those who are finding it difficult to "get with the programme" is rather unhelpful I think. I consider myself pretty resilient - I know death is a fact of life, but my loss has affected me badly. On top of the lockdown, I have to say I am probably experiencing am existential crisis, losing my foundations in one fell swoop - my Mum who I was very close too, my business, even my physical self has taken a toll due to weight gain, general lack of self care etc, all of which the stoic voice in my head berates me for, while my more nurturing instincts tell me to be kinder to myself.

Without lockdown, I wouldn't have been able to care for my Mum effectively without shutting my business anyway as I am a one man band. Selfishly I can see that it has had an advantage for me in that respect. But then my DP is horribly depressed because his job is tied into his very identity and he is unlikley to be able to go back to it until July or August depending on whether there is a second wave as lockdown is eased.

I think for many the worst effect of lockdown on mental health is the feeling of impotence. We are not control freaks by any means, and can roll with most punches, but now the things which definitely used to be in our control, our foundations as it were, have been removed and that is extremely difficult to come to terms with.

Saying that people are only scared about catching the virus themselves, or don't care about the other effects of lockdown is rather sweeping - most people have some empathy for others and the situation we are in mainly generates a feeling of helplessness - what can we do? if we restart the economy and more people die of the virus but fewer from the effects of lockdown is that acceptable? It is a moral dilemma out of the scope of our previous experience.

As for blindly following the government and their experts - what is the option when actively not following the rules may lead to a criminal record and heavy fines ? There are many things I and scores of others don't agree with mandated by the government, yet protests are scant, and we tend to follow along, grumbling to avoid negative consequences.

OP can you outline a scenario to get out of lockdown that you think would both satisfy those worried about and at risk from the virus, while also protecting and rebuilding the economy?

Why do people keep saying that lockdown is about preventing infection while a vaccine is being developed?
It’s about preventing infection until isolate, track and trace are implemented. That in turn is meant to prevent infection until there are better treatments and/or a vaccine. We’re nowhere near implementing a track and trace system. South Korea and Germany have, so clearly its possible.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the virus running rampant would cause more damage to the economy than the course they have chosen, there is no way that our pretty much solely money oriented government would have chosen lockdown.

The fact that they could have avoided lockdown by aggressive testing and local quarantining at the outset is due to their incompetence and arrogance.

And, we all want to come out of lockdown, but when testing and social distancing are properly implemented. You aren’t different to anyone else in this regard. Except that a lot of us are hoping never to get this disease as it seems to be random in how it affects people. Nor do we want our older and elderly relatives and friends to get it. Test, track and isolate would keep a lot of us safe from it.

*it’s possible

I don’t think I’m about to die.
I’m relatively intelligent, enough to know that as yet we don’t know enough about the virus to make decisions that may well send us back into lockdown with soaring death rates.

Totally agree with you OP.

There is no plan to stop people from getting the virus - it's in the population and it'll continue to spread, regardless of lockdown. So even if someone stays away from everyone at the moment and doesn't get it at some point they will have to engage with life again, at which point they may get it. They may suffer badly or not, but lockdown will make no difference whatsoever to that

i think you are just looking at this from a UK pov, Italy, after a very strict lockdown, has relaxed restrictions to the extent it is allowing some foreign tourism, italy has a very low infection rate, with testing and tracing, it can keep the R number very low, same with Germany, france and Korea.

We are doing the opposite and going for herd immunity now but considering 67% of us are fat and fat people can suffer from CV badly, do you think this is the right approach?

OP can you outline a scenario to get out of lockdown that you think would both satisfy those worried about and at risk from the virus, while also protecting and rebuilding the economy?

Yes. Present very clearly the actual data about the real risk to people, over and over so they get it. Because there are so many people who seem to think that 1) if someone walks by them they will definitely get infected (never mind the fact that the risk is so tiny that you might as well not even think about it) and 2) that if they do get it they're a goner - the vast, vast, vast majority of people recover, many without even being that ill.

Illustrate clearly to people the risks of being in lockdown, because most people don't seem to understand. Present data on the likely number of children stuck a home with abusive parents without access to even one other adult who could help them, without even the chance to get away to go to school each day. Highlight the utter misery that that is causing. That's even before thinking about adults who are abused by their partners and the adults and children killed by their own family members during lockdown. Discuss clearly and transparently the real effect shutting down the economy will have on people in their day to day lives, the massive effect on public services, including education and healthcare, the long term effect on job prospects and opportunities for children.

Explain that yes, this disease was worrying when it first arrived and predictions had to be made to figure out what the worse case scenario would be. But that hasn't happened and there is evidence that that worst case would never happen, so that's good news. And because the possibility of a vaccine/treatment is not here yet, we need to actually live our lives and play our part in ensuring our country keeps functioning. Because it's not actually sensible or right to hide at home in fear when that fear is unwarranted and that behaviour creates suffering and huge problems.

And the government needs to actually lead and give clear, direct support and guidance to all businesses so that they could the basic things they needs to do - good hygiene being the main one - so they can get back up and running and do the actual things that reduce risk without destroying themselves.

I'm really sorry for your loss @OldQueen1969. Do you some support around you?

Good post old Queen

Early infection rates were based on test numbers less than 10% of the numbers being tested towards the end of April. For example 4000 positives from 8000 tests is not the same as 4000 positives from 100000 tests.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the virus running rampant would cause more damage to the economy than the course they have chosen, there is no way that our pretty much solely money oriented government would have chosen lockdown.

The model that predicted the way the virus would spread is inaccurate. The government locked down because that totally inaccurate model along with public pressure forced them to. Now that it's clear that lockdown is too severe a reaction they can't just back pedal because people will understandably ask what the fuck they were doing tanking the economy unnecessarily. So they have to stick to their guns and say we have to do this slowly and monitor the R and such because saying 'actually, just go back to normal, and wash your hands' will make them look like nincompoops. We're suffering so they can save face.

Sweden took the brave stand of saying 'we'll do the basic things we need to do to prevent spread but we will accept that life has to go on.' They didn't overreact. According to the inaccurate models, Sweden should be overwhelmed with cases now. They are not, of course. Because what they're doing is enough to stop that happening. Locking people in their houses and preventing them from living is not a solution.

@Jetstream my friend tested positive, an NHS nurse and her one and only symptom was a loss of her sense of smell. She’s 31, so yes young, but she is probably on her own admission overweight.
Her partner had a mild cold and her toddler had nothing. Not a single symptom, unless he lost his sense of smell too, I wouldn’t know.

Are the deaths so far an acceptable number then? Because they are a far higher number than Sweden’s.

I wonder how many of the 'bewildered above' have actually had a nasty dose of Covid19? Or have suffered the loss of a family member to it.

I suppose my view is skewed by the fact a family member (DH side) committed suicide partly due to the lockdown and shielding.

I'm not sure what you're asking @Dontknowhowtohelp1. The one thing I will say is that the deaths were caused by a virus, one that is out in the community whether we like it or not. There are things we can do to limit the spread of the virus, but it's not just going to disappear. Lockdown is a matter of choice and none of the deaths caused by that are 'acceptable' IMO because they could be prevented.

the vast, vast, vast majority of people recover, many without even being that ill.

I'm not sure that any scientist, epidemiologist or medic would agree that the "vast vast vast majority" of people recover. Quite apart from the fact that a not insignificant proportion of people die, we don't know what the long-term effects will be not only for those hospitalised but even for those who don't have particularly severe symptoms.

@chugmonkey not to the virus, as I’ve put above the only person I know to test positive, a friend who is a nurse had one mild symptom - a loss of smell.
However we have lost a family member to suicide recently, partly as a result of this lockdown I’m afraid to say.

I think the debate on mumsnet would be vastly more useful if we all agreed never to use the term 'lockdown'. There isn't a clear definition of it, and there isn't a binary choice between lockdown and no lockdown. There has been and will be a constantly changing combination of measures. There are also things people are attributing to govt enforced lockdown that are actually decisions by certain businesses or associations which could continue whatever the govt advise.

If we didn't use the term lockdown, it might be easier to get away from this oversimplification and the strange idea that we are divided into people who want to 'end lockdown' and people who want to 'lockdown forever'.

Ps I should add that I am guilty of using lockdown as a shorthand myself

I guess lockdown is ok to use as a way to refer to a specific package of initial measures in a particular country, or a specific time frame. Having no definition agreed upon within a thread or discussion is not constructive though.