Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

To think people need to be released from the idea that they must 'stay safe'?

434 replies

TheDailyCarbuncle · 01/07/2020 13:55

IMO people's heads have been messed with on an absolutely massive scale during this pandemic. So many people seem to be locked into the idea that they absolutely must avoid getting covid at all costs, no matter what, to the extent that they're convinced that if they don't do everything possible to 'stay safe' then they're definitely going to die.

I genuinely think that the extent to which governments around the world have convinced people that the only thing that matters is this virus is a far far far bigger problem than the virus itself. I think governments are too cowardly to say what needs to be said, which is that there is no way to prevent everyone from getting it, and that attempting to prevent it is causing so many other problems that it just can't be done any more.

I think people are being driven around the twist with the idea that this threat is out there, lurking at all times, waiting to get them. It's like a form of mental torture, with people questioning everything and worrying about everything, while the economy crumbles around them.

There is no guarantee of a vaccine or of more effective treatments. There is every chance that covid will still be circulating, along with every other virus, in 2030. You could do everything absolutely 'right' now and still get it next year or in five years.

I get the fact that it was new, unprecedented, etc. But where do we draw the line? When will the acceptance come? When it's too late and there's no way to restore the millions of jobs lost? When economies have collapsed so much that poverty, violence and starvation make covid look like a walk in the park?

OP posts:
Jrobhatch29 · 02/07/2020 10:06

"How about we remove all restrictions for anyone willing to sign a waiver that they will not ask for NHS treatment if they catch the virus? You willing to sign up, OP?"

Oh god. We are back to the days of "nobody on the beach should get nhs treatment". Stupid thing to say.

TheDailyCarbuncle · 02/07/2020 10:06

@MereDintofPandiculation

In the early days of this, it was made very clear that treatment would go to "those most likely to benefit", and one of the criteria for not being likely to benefit was being over 70. Then there was the warning about comorbidities - and a high proportion of people over 70 have acquired at least one of these. If you've been told a) that if you get it, you are likely to develop complications and b) you are less likely to be treated, it is far from irrational to do whatever you need to to try to avoid getting it.
Ok, if this is the way you interpreted what was said I understand some of the fear.

Some patients were definitely let down by not getting access to hospital early enough - the criteria for admission were far too high and that was awful, but it was rectified.

However, you have entirely misinterpreted the idea that treatment would go to 'those most likely to benefit' if you think that that means that someone who could be saved is just allowed to die. At no point has treatment for covid been rationed or denied to people. What has happened is that people haven't been put on ventilators because doing so would amount to assault and cruelty because it would only cause them pain and not increase their chance of survival, ie you don't give someone a treatment that they you don't believe they will benefit from. Does that make sense?

While the risk among over 70s is higher, it's still the case that even among over 80s the survival rate is nearly 87%. That means for every 100 people over 80 who get it, regardless of whether they have other illnesses, 87 survive. People seem to believe that if they get it they're done for, which is absolutely not the case. It is possible to be over 80 and in very ill health generally and still get covid without any symptoms or with only mild symptoms - it's not at all the case that there's no hope and I think it's awful that people have been given that idea.

OP posts:
Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/07/2020 10:07

If you're not shielding you can go out to shops, see people, leave the house, work, go to pubs soon... nobody is protecting me except myself confused
The lockdown was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, the shielding were protecting themselves by well, shielding

Exactly. I am shielding. I'm protecting myself. I've not noticed anyone else protecting me (apart from my husband)

Stellakent · 02/07/2020 10:08

Mysteries don't be so ridiculous. People shouldn't be criticised for doing things that are normal activities which they're perfectly allowed to do.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/07/2020 10:15

TheDailyCarbuncle

Can you explain why many patients were sent DNR forms then in a blanket mail shot?

It's very clear that certain people would not be considered eligible for ventilation should they need it. The NICE guidelines that were released were quite disturbing as to who fell into the ineligible category. I don't think it's irrational if people who would be ineligible for ITU, or even hospital treatment, would prefer to do everything possible to avoid catching it rather than take a chance and see what happens.

Sure, as with life in general, some people have a devil.may care attitude and are happy to take chances that others baulk at. A carpe Diem attitude. But equally there are others who are more cautious. What's wrong with that?

If you are happy to take your chances then that's great isn't it?.Just be sure to follow guidelines so that you don't infect others and then enjoy living your life.

Jrobhatch29 · 02/07/2020 10:18

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-immunity-levels-higher-than-antibody-tests-suggest-according-to-swedish-study-12018799

We might be "safer" then we think according to this study. 30% more people had had the virus and used T Cells than antibody tests had detected

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/07/2020 10:20

@Jrobhatch29

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-immunity-levels-higher-than-antibody-tests-suggest-according-to-swedish-study-12018799

We might be "safer" then we think according to this study. 30% more people had had the virus and used T Cells than antibody tests had detected

Hasn't a study in I believe Holland found that immunity didn't last though?
ThisAintNoPartyThisAintNoDisco · 02/07/2020 10:31

I agree with you OP. The phrase creeping in that I keep hearing ‘the new normal’ bothers me more than anything.

This is it now then..people terrified, distanced, isolated and everything ruined?

Jrobhatch29 · 02/07/2020 10:33

Lets immediately shut down any positive news.
If more people have had it, its less dangerous.

pigeon999 · 02/07/2020 10:35

The point is no one knows which way it will go.

We will either open everything up and we will be fine, or we will open everything up and quickly become engulfed in a second wave.

Your risk appetite will depend on whether you are fit enough to surf the wave or not....

AdultFishcakes · 02/07/2020 10:38

I think by flooding the thread with articles from newspapers further affirms the OPs point though.

The message that’s still high on the mass media agenda is KILLER DISEASE EVERYWHERE.

And that’s simply not true.

Yes, people have died and I agree that lockdown was needed to essentially buy time: for health officials to get to know what this virus actually looks like PLUS to avoid strain on health services.

But we know more now and the need for extreme caution really isn’t there anymore now we understand more.

The OP is saying therefore that those who wish to keep everyone under lockdown conditions and consequently fearful and anxious are doing us a disservice and that by allowing this message to perpetuate is unforgivable.

Yes it’s a virus that’s caused havoc like no other but time and again the science is proving that we have to learn to live with this and that running from it is now pointless.

The OP isn’t saying “fuck youse all, I don’t care who lives and dies”.

The OP is saying that it’s time now individuals are allowed to make their own risk assessments and act accordingly and to not foist that view on others.

Honestly, the amount of people I know who’ve had friendships and family relationships damaged by their appetite for risk based on sensible assessment is staggering and depressing in the extreme. And IMHO, totally avoidable if the mixed media and those in positions of power would quit with the alarmist tone and sinister language used when reporting.

RoseAndRose · 02/07/2020 10:43

"those who wish to keep everyone under lockdown conditions"

I think that's a straw man argument

Stellakent · 02/07/2020 10:46

I agree Adultfishcakes. If people want to stay at home I fully respect their choice but no-one should be berated for undertaking normal, permitted activities in a considerate way.

AdultFishcakes · 02/07/2020 10:48

Tell me how I’ve misinterpreted the argument then @roseandrose

Seriously, I’d appreciate it

AllPowerfulLizardPerson · 02/07/2020 10:51

If everyone, no matter how ill-informed and unused to assessing risk, makes their own a risk assessments, then we shall rapidly be back to square one.

The only tools available to prevent disastrous peaks are handwashing and social distancing. The latter needs clarity - which has already been lost in the buggers muddle that is 2m or 1m+ (everyone hears 1m, and then underestimates how long a metre is)

There are over 2m currently shielding, and several million more in the vulnerable catergoty, plus those who may be pregnant and the not fully understood factors for the BAME community. I would not want to be part of an 'I'm all right Jack' society that was prepared to risk those people (not just death, but also chronic illness - on the polio model, mild for most horrible for others), but with the loss of the distancing message, they are increasingly at risk.

Right now, in the summer (which has been sunny so far) transmission rates are really low. I would want to see experience from a cool, damp winter virus season before changing tack completely

20mum · 02/07/2020 10:54

Hearhoovesthinkzebras (Love that name!) has made a good point headed Daily Carbuncle about ten posts prior to here. Assessing personal risk will produce different conclusions not only by personality but by circumstances. If you, or someone in your household, is extremely likely to die if exposed to infection, you are not free to take a devil may care risk.
My analogy would be someone wishing to run across a motorway . An athlete might correctly assess low risk, a Zimmer frame user would equally correctly assess high risk.

RoseAndRose · 02/07/2020 10:57

"Tell me how I’ve misinterpreted the argument then @roseandrose"
"Seriously, I’d appreciate it"

By giving prominence as a debating point to 'those who want to keep everyone under lockdown conditions' because that is unfounded hyperbole postulating the existence of a group which is not a real one.

The straw man is when suggesting that people who wish a more measured relaxation, are actually saying no relaxation.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/07/2020 10:58

But we know more now and the need for extreme caution really isn’t there anymore now we understand more.

How so? You say yourself, we locked down to save the NHS from being swamped. Has that risk now.passed? How come? What's stopping the virus reaching the level it was when we locked down first time? What's in place to stop the NHS being swamped now? Obviously government don't think they could prevent that happening, hence locking Leicester down again. If theyve got information which means caution is no longer necessary why have they locked Leicester down again?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/07/2020 11:01

AllPowerfulLizardPerson

Well said.

Iwalkinmyclothing · 02/07/2020 11:01

Yanbu at all. My mum intends to remain isolated with my dad, all shopping delivered, no visitors, only occasional walks outside to deserted places, until there is a vaccine. (Neither are shielding). I have sympathy for her anxieties but I think she is being ridiculous and I have refused for weeks now to discuss much of what me and the dc do, because anything other than "we sat inside bleaching our hands every 15 minutes" results in screeching about the danger.

AdultFishcakes · 02/07/2020 11:06

Ok let me clarify:

Feb/March - virus is wreaking havoc in some counties in Europe (specifically Italy/Spain). Their lockdown begins, we follow suit (eventually 😐)

March/April - virus peaking across Europe but lockdowns seem to be avoiding catastrophic meltdown of health systems, track and trace systems trialled, apps created to allow population to record data critical to understand more

April/May - virus peak passes, health system catastrophe deemed avoided, restrictions in Europe ease, phasing out of the more extreme measures

May/June - COVID hotspots identified and managed (see parts of Germany, now Leicester) restrictions ease further now the R rate is clearly falling and science is showing us that it’s a lot more prevalent in the population than previously thought along with antibodies amongst those tested.

The point stands: we know more. And what we don’t know will be monitored and acted on as the evidence presents itself. But we are not where we are 3 months ago as we know more

But the messages remain as shrill and hysterical as ever and it’s just not needed.

I don’t think I could be clearer that I echo the OPs sentiment but I respect those who wish to be more cautious on the proviso they don’t ram their opinions down my throat or call me a nurse murdering vector of infection because I went to Sainsburys for some Turkish Delight.

TheDailyCarbuncle · 02/07/2020 11:15

@MysteriesOfTheOrganism

How about we remove all restrictions for anyone willing to sign a waiver that they will not ask for NHS treatment if they catch the virus? You willing to sign up, OP?
I find this attitude so utterly ridiculous that I don't know what to say to it tbh.
OP posts:
LolaSmiles · 02/07/2020 11:22

I find this attitude so utterly ridiculous that I don't know what to say to it tbh
The only reason it's a little ridiculous is that it probably won't be the idiots who want to flock to pubs and busy places who will feel the consequences.

I never understand this 'I want to get back to normal, you lot are hysterical for wanting to reduce the spread of the virus... I'll be alright, but totally expect to have all the stops pulled out if I get the virus I've spent months saying isn't a real threat' argument. There's been a few of them on my Facebook feed, you know the types who read a couple of blogs, share some memes and think their 'research' makes them an expert on everything from Brexit economics, to vaccines to covid.

TheDailyCarbuncle · 02/07/2020 11:32

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

TheDailyCarbuncle

Can you explain why many patients were sent DNR forms then in a blanket mail shot?

It's very clear that certain people would not be considered eligible for ventilation should they need it. The NICE guidelines that were released were quite disturbing as to who fell into the ineligible category. I don't think it's irrational if people who would be ineligible for ITU, or even hospital treatment, would prefer to do everything possible to avoid catching it rather than take a chance and see what happens.

Sure, as with life in general, some people have a devil.may care attitude and are happy to take chances that others baulk at. A carpe Diem attitude. But equally there are others who are more cautious. What's wrong with that?

If you are happy to take your chances then that's great isn't it?.Just be sure to follow guidelines so that you don't infect others and then enjoy living your life.

TBH I think the NHS saw their opportunity to encourage people to consider what treatment would be suitable for them and took advantage of it in a really horrible way.

For many patients a DNR is the right option. What it means is, when all other treatment options (fluids, anti virals, steroids etc etc) have been exhausted and the person is so unwell that the only way to sustain them is through mechanically keeping them alive with little to no hope of recovery, does the person want that? A DNR is ABSOLUTELY NOT about denying a person treatment and if you believe it is then you must believe that doctors are unbelievably cruel and untrustworthy. A DNR is about avoiding a situation in which a very ill patient isn't cruelly and painfully kept 'alive' when doing so is only a matter of prolonging suffering. One of my closest friends who's a doctor chose palliative care as her specialty largely because in palliative care, death is accepted and managed rather than avoided at all costs. She couldn't bear seeing elderly people being pumped full of drugs, resuscitated, hanging on in misery for weeks and months because no one could say 'actually we need to stop now.' That's what a DNR is about - recognising that a certain point, treatment is no longer the right option.

OP posts: