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

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

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?

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

Really? A track and trace app has been utilised in the UK? Where?

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 R rate seems to be remaining pretty steady at fractionally below.one, and over in some places and the jury seems to be out with regards antibody testing because questions are being asked as to how long immunity lasts for, so even if more people have had it than first thought if that immunity only lasts a couple of months essentially the whole.population is at risk most of the time.

My point is that there are still.so.many questions that remain unanswered and even when they answer one question more spring up, so we can't draw any conclusions yet. Surely the only sensible way to proceed is with caution? Is there any scientist endorsing an alternative plan, other than take steps.to.reduve transmission?

I'm baffled by those who say the NHS shouldn't treat those who catch Covid while socialising. The NHS already treats smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, gangsters and those who have injured themselves falling through a window while burgling someone's house. They are not going to refuse people whose crime is meeting up with friends.

TheDailyCarbuncle

Yes, I understand what a DNR should be - I'm an RGN.

Patently, in this instance that is not what the DNRs were used for. They were sent out indiscriminately, with no counselling, they were not patient centred and no best interests discussions were held, were they?

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.

The shouldn't be about denying treatment, but in this case they absolutely were. Patients that might well have benefited from oxygen, iv fluids, antibiotics for secondary infections or steroids simply didn't get them. Was their treatment unbelievably cruel? If they were left at home, or in a care home, to succumb to this, without palliative care, then in my opinion I think undoubtedly some people were treated with unbelievable cruelty, yes.

Did care home residents get any form of medical.care if they caught Covid? Do you know the answer?

IrenetheQuaint

Quite!

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.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion around vulnerable people and Covid and DNRs. Did your friend who.is a palliative care Dr treat the people who were offered no active treatment and who were left at home or in care homes? Could they access palliative care? Maybe ask your friend.

You can't argue with stupid.

I'll choose to try not to get it, thanks all the same. I don't have to justify that to you or anyone else.

If you want to go & lick door handles please feel free

@IrenetheQuaint

I'm baffled by those who say the NHS shouldn't treat those who catch Covid while socialising. The NHS already treats smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, gangsters and those who have injured themselves falling through a window while burgling someone's house. They are not going to refuse people whose crime is meeting up with friends.

So, people who break guidelines, risk spreading the virus and causing a second peak because they don't believe this is a serious problem should get treatment if they catch it, but a vulnerable person who has played by the book but has been.infected by one of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade should be left to sink or swim?

This is an issue where individual rights aren't more important than the rights of society as a whole. We all have to work together for the benefit of everyone and we can't all just do what benefits the individual, in the short term. It's a very well running out to the pubs and restaurants this weekend because you can and because you argue that you're helping to get the economy up and running. But, if in doing so, you all throw caution to the wind, abandon social distancing and cause a second peak do you think that will benefit the economy?

Looking at Leicester there seems to be questions about the cause of the outbreak. Factories and schools seem to be in the picture, both arguably supporting the economy getting back running. Except it's caused a total lockdown, so non essential shops are shut again, pubs and restaurants etc that could have re opened this weekend now can't. How have those businesses been helped? So, the actions of some who didn't follow guidelines have now negatively impacted many others. How can anyone support that stance?

Hearhooves. You're treating people capable of decent behaviour as idiots. Going to a pub or restaurant this weekend is a perfectly normal, allowed activity. It doesn't mean that people are throwing all caution to the wind, that they won't wash their hands, behave appropriately. Yes, there will be some selfish idiots. But you can't tar everyone with the same brush. Otherwise what's the answer? We all stay indoors until the world is risk free?

No-one should be chastised for doing normal things that are allowed. It's ridiculous and it's upsetting for people who are being socially responsible but trying to move on with life.

@TheDailyCarbuncle You seem very uneducated where this virus is concerned.

It's a new virus. Humanity has never encountered it before. There is evidence it causes long term damage to lungs, even in healthy individuals. Brain damage is now coming to light, children can get a damaging Kawasaki like illness.

20% of the population are affected badly by the virus, including BaME disproportionately. Many younger people are badly hit and it isn't just a mild cold, but a severe illness lasting weeks.

If you are a healthy white couple with 2 junior school age children, your risk is low. Many people are in this category, but many are not and many rely on vulnerable grandparents for childcare.

I'm not terrified of it, but I have vulnerable members of my family, included a shielded child. I have to be extra careful. I want as many people as possible to return to a more normal life. I'm happy to keep queuing and online shopping. We need to get the economy going and a more normal life, but I'm not 'fearful' just realistic.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

TheDailyCarbuncle

Yes, I understand what a DNR should be - I'm an RGN.

Patently, in this instance that is not what the DNRs were used for. They were sent out indiscriminately, with no counselling, they were not patient centred and no best interests discussions were held, were they?

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.

The shouldn't be about denying treatment, but in this case they absolutely were. Patients that might well have benefited from oxygen, iv fluids, antibiotics for secondary infections or steroids simply didn't get them. Was their treatment unbelievably cruel? If they were left at home, or in a care home, to succumb to this, without palliative care, then in my opinion I think undoubtedly some people were treated with unbelievable cruelty, yes.

Did care home residents get any form of medical.care if they caught Covid? Do you know the answer?

If people were denied care that they should have been given, that's a failure of the healthcare system surely? That has nothing to do with a virus and everything to do with a system that is broken.

What's the point in locking down if, while in lockdown, with empty Nightingale hospitals sitting idle, people aren't given the care they need? I include in that people that didn't get care for other conditions besides covid.

[quote puzzledpiece]@TheDailyCarbuncle You seem very uneducated where this virus is concerned.

It's a new virus. Humanity has never encountered it before. There is evidence it causes long term damage to lungs, even in healthy individuals. Brain damage is now coming to light, children can get a damaging Kawasaki like illness.

20% of the population are affected badly by the virus, including BaME disproportionately. Many younger people are badly hit and it isn't just a mild cold, but a severe illness lasting weeks.

If you are a healthy white couple with 2 junior school age children, your risk is low. Many people are in this category, but many are not and many rely on vulnerable grandparents for childcare.

I'm not terrified of it, but I have vulnerable members of my family, included a shielded child. I have to be extra careful. I want as many people as possible to return to a more normal life. I'm happy to keep queuing and online shopping. We need to get the economy going and a more normal life, but I'm not 'fearful' just realistic. [/quote]
Where did you get the figure that 20% of the population are badly affected?

20% of 66 million is 13.2 million.

Are you saying that 13.2 million people have been shown to have severe effects from covid?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

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.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion around vulnerable people and Covid and DNRs. Did your friend who.is a palliative care Dr treat the people who were offered no active treatment and who were left at home or in care homes? Could they access palliative care? Maybe ask your friend.

I asked this already but I'll ask it again.

What's the point in lockdown, if, during lockdown, people didn't get the treatment they needed?

If people are still going to be denied treatment during lockdown, surely the whole thing is utterly pointless???

Absolutely no point in arguing with Hooves who isn't happy unless everyone is locked up. Because according to her, nobody can be trusted and everyone's breaking the rules and guidelines.

This is an issue where individual rights aren't more important than the rights of society as a whole. We all have to work together for the benefit of everyone and we can't all just do what benefits the individual, in the short term. It's a very well running out to the pubs and restaurants this weekend because you can and because you argue that you're helping to get the economy up and running. But, if in doing so, you all throw caution to the wind, abandon social distancing and cause a second peak do you think that will benefit the economy?

This argument doesn't make much sense to be @Hearhoovesthinkzebras. Does 'society' have a right to expect to be protected from one single risk, from a virus, at the expense of the people who are subject to other risks? As in, if you're spared from getting the virus (which you have a very high chance of surviving, even if you're over 80 and in poor health) but a child dies from abuse because they're stuck at home with an abuser for six months with no school, is that worth it? Or do you at some point have to say that there are many risks and prioritising one over the many others doesn't make sense, or is in fact wrong?

Just to clarify further @puzzledpiece, looking only at deaths (43,906 is the most recent figure I can find) the percentage of the population that has died from covid is 0.07%.

What's the point in lockdown, if, during lockdown, people didn't get the treatment they needed?

Well, quite. But thousands of people were denied treatment when they became ill with Covid. That's my point.

Does 'society' have a right to expect to be protected from one single risk, from a virus, at the expense of the people who are subject to other risks?

But the people who are helping the virus spread, by not following social distancing or the current guidelines, whatever they may be, are actually contributing to the problem. People who force restrictions or lockdown by causing a second wave are the ones causing children to be kept locked in, hospital treatment for other conditions suspended and so on.

I'm not sure why people don't understand this. If you want schools open, hospital treatment running, people back at work then you have to keep infection rates low. There's no other way. You can't have high rates of infection, lots of people ill and think that society carries on as normal while this plays out all around.

About the DNR orders, which seem to be to not do CPR, rather.

It really isn't about treatment. It's about not trying to restart the heart when it has already stopped.
Very different from the posts I've seen here, including those saying the DNR isn't about treatment.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/08/do-not-resuscitate-orders-caused-panic-uk-truth

Lweji

Did care home residents get treatment when they caught Covid? Did all of the people at home get treatment? Did the people who signed these DNRs get treatment? I'd love for the data to be published around this.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

What's the point in lockdown, if, during lockdown, people didn't get the treatment they needed?

Well, quite. But thousands of people were denied treatment when they became ill with Covid. That's my point.

Does 'society' have a right to expect to be protected from one single risk, from a virus, at the expense of the people who are subject to other risks?

But the people who are helping the virus spread, by not following social distancing or the current guidelines, whatever they may be, are actually contributing to the problem. People who force restrictions or lockdown by causing a second wave are the ones causing children to be kept locked in, hospital treatment for other conditions suspended and so on.

I'm not sure why people don't understand this. If you want schools open, hospital treatment running, people back at work then you have to keep infection rates low. There's no other way. You can't have high rates of infection, lots of people ill and think that society carries on as normal while this plays out all around.

I'm still confused.

So we have to lockdown to ensure that people get treatment, except that during lockdown people didn't get treatment?

[quote Lweji]About the DNR orders, which seem to be to not do CPR, rather.

It really isn't about treatment. It's about not trying to restart the heart when it has already stopped.
Very different from the posts I've seen here, including those saying the DNR isn't about treatment.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/08/do-not-resuscitate-orders-caused-panic-uk-truth[/quote]
That's exactly my interpretation of DNR - 'resuscitation' in that sense means trying to bring someone back after their heart has stopped. It has nothing to do with denying treatment to someone who's still alive.

[quote puzzledpiece]@TheDailyCarbuncle You seem very uneducated where this virus is concerned.

It's a new virus. Humanity has never encountered it before. There is evidence it causes long term damage to lungs, even in healthy individuals. Brain damage is now coming to light, children can get a damaging Kawasaki like illness.

20% of the population are affected badly by the virus, including BaME disproportionately. Many younger people are badly hit and it isn't just a mild cold, but a severe illness lasting weeks.

If you are a healthy white couple with 2 junior school age children, your risk is low. Many people are in this category, but many are not and many rely on vulnerable grandparents for childcare.

I'm not terrified of it, but I have vulnerable members of my family, included a shielded child. I have to be extra careful. I want as many people as possible to return to a more normal life. I'm happy to keep queuing and online shopping. We need to get the economy going and a more normal life, but I'm not 'fearful' just realistic. [/quote]
Where is the 20% figure from?

OP can’t seem to differentiate being ‘lockdown’ and ‘keeping infection rates low’. South Korea never had a lockdown.

So we have to lockdown to ensure that people get treatment, except that during lockdown people didn't get treatment?

I think.lockdown has to happen when the virus is circulating at a certain level. I can't see a way round it. Allowed to run through the population and it will overwhelm the NHS, just from Covid cases and then other emergencies won't be treated.

Clearly this time, I think we locked down too late. Government were then fearful that we would end up like Italy and Spain with patients laying in corridors and so on and so the decision was taken to shut down the NHS to all but emergencies plus Covid.

In my opinion what should have happened was lockdown earlier, so when we had less cases and then separate hospitals into Covid and non Covid and worked to allow as much non Covid treatment to carry on as possible, yes with restrictions because testing wasn't good but I think it was feasible.

But in the situation that government allowed to happen I don't think there was any choice but to restrict NHS services.

Going forward I think every endeavour should be made to stop full lockdown from happening again. The side effects of it can't be avoided and so isn't it better to just avoid lockdown? That cannot happen though with high levels of infection because, again, too many people will need hospital care at the same time and hospitals will be overwhelmed.

So, it seems sensible to keep infection rates as low as possible but obviously we can't stay in lockdown. So what came we do to keep rates low? The answer is social distancing, wear masks, wash hands, stay away from large groups.

I honestly cannot see anything controversial in what I'm saying. We are not in control of this virus. It isn't bending to our will. If we give it the right conditions it will thrive so it's up to is to remove those conditions. If we all do this to the best of our abilities hopefully life can continue differently but still positively. They are doing it in other countries.

I just cannot see anyone with expertise in this who advocates returning to pre Covid life without serious consequences.

@Redolent

OP can’t seem to differentiate being ‘lockdown’ and ‘keeping infection rates low’. South Korea never had a lockdown.

Absolutely, 100%

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

So we have to lockdown to ensure that people get treatment, except that during lockdown people didn't get treatment?

I think.lockdown has to happen when the virus is circulating at a certain level. I can't see a way round it. Allowed to run through the population and it will overwhelm the NHS, just from Covid cases and then other emergencies won't be treated.

Clearly this time, I think we locked down too late. Government were then fearful that we would end up like Italy and Spain with patients laying in corridors and so on and so the decision was taken to shut down the NHS to all but emergencies plus Covid.

In my opinion what should have happened was lockdown earlier, so when we had less cases and then separate hospitals into Covid and non Covid and worked to allow as much non Covid treatment to carry on as possible, yes with restrictions because testing wasn't good but I think it was feasible.

But in the situation that government allowed to happen I don't think there was any choice but to restrict NHS services.

Going forward I think every endeavour should be made to stop full lockdown from happening again. The side effects of it can't be avoided and so isn't it better to just avoid lockdown? That cannot happen though with high levels of infection because, again, too many people will need hospital care at the same time and hospitals will be overwhelmed.

So, it seems sensible to keep infection rates as low as possible but obviously we can't stay in lockdown. So what came we do to keep rates low? The answer is social distancing, wear masks, wash hands, stay away from large groups.

I honestly cannot see anything controversial in what I'm saying. We are not in control of this virus. It isn't bending to our will. If we give it the right conditions it will thrive so it's up to is to remove those conditions. If we all do this to the best of our abilities hopefully life can continue differently but still positively. They are doing it in other countries.

I just cannot see anyone with expertise in this who advocates returning to pre Covid life without serious consequences.

I actually think that what we're saying is quite similar.

At no point have I said that everyone should just forget there's any virus and just behave as if there's no risk at all.

From my OP I said: '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.'

That was my point - that convincing people that the virus must be avoided at all time and and all costs is not only pointless, it's entirely wrong. Because at some point it'll have to be admitted that you can do everything 'right' and still get it.

Taking sensible measures like good hygiene and masks in certain circumstances makes sense to me. But making people think they can't ever go back to normal because the virus is the only thing that matters? Wrong. Denying children an education? Wrong. Preventing elderly people from interacting with their loved ones? Wrong.