Surely everyone who was going to die from corona will do eventually

[sunshineanddaffodils]

Unless we all stay locked up at home forever or unless a vaccination or cure is discovered.

which is one of the 5 tests, so not something new, unexpected, or not part of the lifting strategy from the outset.

Absolutely not true, Dominic Raab introduced his five tests many weeks after the initial lockdown.

Dominic Raab introduced his five tests many weeks after the initial lockdown.

Right but it was always party of the lifting strategy. Are you suggesting that because the lifting strategy wasn't there from the outset we should forget about it?

Most of us are laypeople in most arenas and rely on experts/people educated in a given field to assist in our decision making. If the advice is inconsistent and you don't trust the mouthpiece (i.e the government in this case) it is perfectly sensible for people to take the least seeming risk strategy. Why were Raab's 5 tests valid then but not now? Or if you don't think they were valid, what knowledge do you have that tells you so?

Right but it was always party of the lifting strategy. Are you suggesting that because the lifting strategy wasn't there from the outset we should forget about it?

I would like it to be understood that there have been changing goalposts where the government's rationale for locking down is concerned, and that these are all fundamentally political rather than science-based decisions, also please note that there is considerable disagreement within SAGE on this matter, to say nothing of the (millions?) of scientists/modellers/quant types working on this worldwide.

Note that you said that Raab's five tests were clear 'from the outset'. This is not true and you might think that the distinction is trivial, but I don't.

I also disagree that this is the 'least risky' strategy. The current strategy is enormously risky - the OBR has raised some extremely frightening alarm bells over the UK's economic fate.

It is an impossible task to lock this country down until the 'risk' passes, for starters the risks of people dying from something other than coronavirus are far, far greater (and growing by the day given the unexplained excess deaths and worryingly low NHS numbers).

Note that you said that Raab's five tests were clear 'from the outset'. This is not true and you might think that the distinction is trivial, but I don't.

I don't know whom you're addressing here.

Marginalgain I don't think we disagree on the political drive behind any of the government's responses to this epidemic. However I do think people's personal response should not be debated. OF COURSE if I think I'm at risk I'm going to take what I perceive to be the least risky strategy. I don't know what the least risky strategy technically is because the information and advice I'm getting is flawed.

People on an internet forum telling me that because I'm going to die anyway I shouldn't get a say in how long the lockdown continues is fucking heartless and pointless. Telling me I shouldn't get a say because I don't have the knowledge to judge is entirely accurate - so give me some reliable information, don't criticise me for wanting to not die!

At this point I think the only way I would trust the information given is if the job of transmitting it were handed over to a scientific committee (without a Tory politician or advisor in it).

My 18year old has decided he would really rather not die right now if he can help it.. he feels like he would like a life to live before he dies.. so sorry if that doesn’t fit your idea that he should just get on with it and give up now...

@Potentialmadcatlady I agree with your son, I'm 50 years older than him but young at heart.

@AuntieStella but in the nicest way possible, I'm not responsible for someone who has a bmi of over 40 - aslong as I am sticking to the current guidelines then it is up to said person to assess the risk for themselves.

I agree it shouldnt be done until it is safe a possible but it is never going to be 100 percent. never. and those who plan on staying in until it is 100 percent safe will be staying in forever. I'm sorry but I'm not planning to join them

1forsorrow... you are a lady after my own heart ( or man)..

No, one of the reasons for the relatively low death rate in Germany is that they were able to give most patients oxygen, early in their treatment- preventing some intensive care admissions and deaths.

Some of those who have died have received no medical treatment (e.g. whilst waiting for an ambulance or because they received faulty advice from 111 to wait until their lips were blue) and might have survived had treatment been available. Others were not prioritized for a Ventilator when they needed one. Really it's not inevitable that someone who might die from Covid, will die from Covid- there are lots of different factors involved.

Some of those who have died have received no medical treatment (e.g. whilst waiting for an ambulance or because they received faulty advice from 111 to wait until their lips were blue) and might have survived had treatment been available. Others were not prioritized for a Ventilator when they needed one. Really it's not inevitable that someone who might die from Covid, will die from Covid- there are lots of different factors involved.

This is a strangely resilient piece of misinformation - a triumph of the maniacal covid19 propaganda machine.

Where covid19 patients have been considered for ventilation, but not ultimately ventilated, it has absolutely not been because of scarcity of ventilators but rather because of standard NHS clinical frailty/outcome assessments.

It is certainly true that ventilator scarcity has contributed earlier-than-otherwise-possible respiratory virus deaths in the UK for things other than covid19, every country on earth has accepted rationing as a normal approach to public health ever since public health existed, but this has been completely forgotten in the debate surrounding covid19.

It's completely normal for ICUs to be 'clogged up'.

That’s not clogged up that’s running at the edge of capacity in some regions and patients being transferred to out of area where there are beds.

What we’re talking about with this is capacity exceeded many, many times over with nowhere to transfer patients. The two situations are very very different.

Wow, I hope not, I'm early 40s with a primary school age kid. I just have the bad luck of having a faulty immune system.

What we’re talking about with this is capacity exceeded many, many times over with nowhere to transfer patients. The two situations are very very different.

In Italy they were transferring patients south.

This is a strangely resilient piece of misinformation - a triumph of the maniacal covid19 propaganda machine.

Exactly WHAT is a resilient piece of misinformation? That some people haven't received the right care? No it isn't.

The post you are talking about didn't mention the scarcity of ventilators. It did talk about oxygen not being given. It talked about people dying without treatment. That is not a piece of misinformation.

You speak in a very authoritative way, Marginalgain. Are you in a position to know more than others?

Well obviously they transferred patients south, because the south was much less affected at the point of lockdown. We could have done the same if London had exceeded capacity before lockdown because pretty much everywhere else was less affected.

But if you don’t lock down and prevent people travelling across the country that situation won’t last for long.

Exactly WHAT is a resilient piece of misinformation? That some people haven't received the right care? No it isn't.

Her post very clearly and conveniently highlighted the piece of information, and it wasn't what you invented.

Her post very clearly and conveniently highlighted the piece of information, and it wasn't what you invented.

It does not mention scarcity of ventilators. As I said. Some people were not prioritised for ventilation. That isn't misinformation either.

The post you are talking about didn't mention the scarcity of ventilators

Read it more carefully, perhaps?

@sunshineanddaffodils

What a cheerful post to find on my first foray into Mumsnet for a few days. So, I was going to die anyway, was i? How long do you give me? Be good to know, then I can let my boss know and try to prepare my kids for it as best I can. Got any tips?

Tips for explaining to children that you are not immortal?

Read it more carefully, perhaps?

Actually YOU need to read it properly. It does not mention the scarcity of ventilators being the cause of people not receiving proper care. It saus some people were not prioritised for ventilators which is not the same thing. You may think the distinction is trivial but it is not.

All we can do is try to minimise our chances of catching it just as we do with other illnesses (or doing sensible things to keep us safe day to day eg. Seat belts).

Well op, that's the point of lockdown isn't it? A kind of seat belt.

What do you propose we do, other than lockdown, to minimise chances of catching it?

You're obviously determined to misinterpret my post, but crucially, she said that they were not prioritised for a ventilator when they needed one.

Understatement of the year. We are about to enter a recession the size, implications and lengths of which will last for decades“

Not heard of Brexit? Covid will compound it for sure but it was going to happen anyway. A reasonable government might have considered extending the transition period in the circumstances. Was hoping that the PM’s awful experience may have dampened down the dogma ..........

I think the reasoning is that as there’s going to be a fucking awful recession, you may as well get all the misery over in one awful lump.