For the people who think they've been duped...

[mac12]

I'm not trying to start a bunfight but I'm just curious about this thought process. People who think they've been duped by coronavirus & think lockdowns were a hysterical over-reaction...

• what do you think is going on when countries like China haven't rolled back from their strong stance on this? Do you think it's just to save face? I mean would a country really take a wrecking ball to their economy to save face?
• why have countries like Israel or some US states, which did reopen, decide to start closing down again? Why wouldn't they just crack on and carry on with full reopening if it was so clear that they had been duped & it had all been an overreaction?
• why wouldn't all governments be taking the Sweden line? Our govt isn't averse to the odd U-turn, why wouldn't they do this if they genuinely thought it was safe and they had overreacted?

I'm just wondering why people think governments would persist with this if it was so obviously an overreaction?

That's the problem with the 'we should have done what they did in Sweden and had voluntary social distancing)' sunrise in this country we all believe the rules are for other people, and the risk from us is vanishingly small - it's always someone else who poses the risk and should adjust their life.

I think there's something similar about friends/family - we imagine they pose a lower risk than the stranger on the street so social distancing goes out the window when groups of friends/families get together.

@GrumpiestOldWoman and of course they probably pose us the greatest risk.

That's the problem with the 'we should have done what they did in Sweden and had voluntary social distancing)

Indeed, and those people are the ones who wanted it to remain voluntary so they could
continue to do what the hell they pleased.... If Sweden was full of such people, their approach wouldn’t have worked!

Actually can you imagine a voluntary system in the UK? A minority would go nuts and insist we shouldn't leave the house, subsisting on gruel if necessary. This would be seized upon by the 'masks-are-muzzles' gang (hopefully another minority) who thereafter would claim anyone who tempered their behaviour in any way were 'dementors'. It would be horrid and ugly.

As many of us have said you can't compare Sweden with us, as we are very different

@PenguinBarnotBird

Do not poke the conspiracy bears for the love of god....

@PenguinBarnotBird 😂 best reply every

Yes I agree.
I’m glad we had much more freedom in our lockdown than other countries but reading the threads on here there would be anarchy if we had a voluntary system.

@askmehowiknow

Lockdown was never intended to actually save lives. All it does is flatten the curve/spread out and delay deaths so as not to overwhelm NHS.

But NHS was never overwhelmed. So lockdown did not save lives.

Initially that was the plan but at the start of March when modellers crunched the numbers they predicted if the UK went for mitigation - with some measures in place - rather than suppression then 250,000 lives could be lost. The same model said doing nothing could result in 500,000 deaths. Suppression measures werepredicted to cost 50,000 lives. Finally by March 23 the govt chose suppression. So according to this model, many more lives would have probably been lost had the UK continued with mitigation measures only.

Some modellers said had the UK govt just switched to suppression one week earlier up to a further 20,000 lives may have been saved. Even taking into account the possible lives lost due to non CoVid illnesses it wouldn’t have equalled lives lost to CoVid.

Some experts are saying it should not be viewed as a choice between economy or lives saved as they are intertwined. The lower the community transmission the better the economy will do as confidence in the population will be better and people will be out more, more businesses can operate with near full staff etc.

So if we got viral cases in the community low enough then followed with a decent test, trace, track system zero community transmission could be possibly reached with the testing, tracing and quarantining operating to keep a handle on any local increases. Instead It seems our govt probably locked down too late, starting lifting measures that bit too early before case numbers were lower and still haven’t organised a better test, trade and quarantine system. At the moment we are facing intermittent local lockdowns or risking another national one which endangers lives and continues to be v harmful to the economy.

So if we got viral cases in the community low enough then followed with a decent test, trace, track system zero community transmission could be possibly reached with the testing, tracing and quarantining operating to keep a handle on any local increases. Instead It seems our govt probably locked down too late, starting lifting measures that bit too early before case numbers were lower and still haven’t organised a better test, trade and quarantine system.

This.

We did 95% of the job and at this rate it'll have been for nought.

Editing last two sentence in my last comment. I wrote “ the moment we are facing intermittent local lockdowns or risking another national one which endangers lives and continues to be v harmful to the economy.” Meant to write -‘ at the moment we are facing continuing with the 400 or so lives lost each week that has been the approx figure now for the last few weeks and the economy still suffering a lot as we can’t open up more.”

Think you are being a bit generous with 95% if you are referring to the Government @GrumpiestOldWoman

There would not have been anarchy. I mean come in if being here has taught you one thing, this place is as far from reality as it can be.

No @ineedaholidaynow I was meaning all of us. We did 95% of the work needed but the government prevented us from doing the last 5%, and therefore the shit we've been through will be wasted.

Lockdown was never intended to actually save lives. All it does is flatten the curve/spread out and delay deaths so as not to overwhelm NHS.

A further comment to that claim above - that theory presumes the virus can not be stopped just rate of infection slowed. However, if a vaccine or therapeutic is eventually developed, then more lives will be saved if numbers could be reduced significantly and continued at much lower level until a vaccine or effective therapeutics are developed .

Guylan

Very well put.

@GrumpiestOldWoman

No *@ineedaholidaynow* I was meaning all of us. We did 95% of the work needed but the government prevented us from doing the last 5%, and therefore the shit we've been through will be wasted.

Agree this could be the result by govt not waiting a few more weeks until case numbers even lower and then having a decent test, trace and quarantine system in place to take over.

Thanks Sunrise234. Terrible headache so made some mistakes but hopefully made enough sense.

Lockdown was never intended to actually save lives. All it does is flatten the curve/spread out and delay deaths so as not to overwhelm NHS. But NHS was never overwhelmed. So lockdown did not save lives.

This is the weirdest of twisted logic...

It’s a bit like saying that if I drove towards a cliff edge, and someone stops me from driving over, and I don’t die as a result, that person didn’t save my life because I’m still alive.

Guylan ....and what of the damage done to the economy whilst trying to slow down CV-19 ?

That cannot be ignored, it is not a cost free option, especially as there is no general treatments and no vaccine anytime soon.

The govt have had since March to get TnT working with an app and they have failed, there is no sign they will do any better in the future.

It is simply amazing that people put so much faith into a govt that has done such an appalling job with CV.

[quote Sallycinnamum]@TheDailyCarbuncle thanks for your common sense approach to this shitshow.[/quote]
Second that
@TheDailyCarbuncle
Your posts are well written and articulate
Couldn't agree more

Jasjas,

A pandemic damages the economy. The study done on the 1928 pandemic in the US shows that the states that locked down earliest and hardest suffered the least economic damage.

This is because, when a pandemic is allowed to play out, many people are at home sick or caring for someone who is sick. In addition, many people voluntarily quarantine themselves and stop spending money.

Now, of course, we don’t know for a fact that COVID-19 would have played out like that, but most epidemiologists and social modellers believe it would.

Lockdown is unpleasant but the leaser of two evils.

@Guylan

Lockdown was never intended to actually save lives. All it does is flatten the curve/spread out and delay deaths so as not to overwhelm NHS.

A further comment to that claim above - that theory presumes the virus can not be stopped just rate of infection slowed. However, if a vaccine or therapeutic is eventually developed, then more lives will be saved if numbers could be reduced significantly and continued at much lower level until a vaccine or effective therapeutics are developed .

And you are assuming a vaccine could eradicate the virus. Even if we get one (possibly never) it can't.

Suppression is no different to flattening the curve. The virus doesn't go away. It just infects people at a slower rate

When a lot of carriers are asymptotic. We cannot possibly hope to eliminate this virus. Especially as we have no choice but to fully reopen the economy and schools. It's going nowhere.

Think about HIV. After 40 years there's no vaccine. It's still here.

People don't change fundamentally human behaviour. For example not having sex/wearing condoms. Or not socialising.

Plus infected individuals are often asymptotic.

Yes there are treatments for HIV. There are also treatments already for covid. We live with viruses. We will live alongside covid soon too

That is exactly the point. It is here and not going away. We can't keep coming out and locking up over and over again. Losing businesses left, right and centre and stopping education for so many children.