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?

No one knows what the hell they are doing and why would they? This hasn't happened in living memory. No need to harp on about the Spanish flu, the world was a totally different place 100 years ago.
When this virus has been part of our lives for 10 / 15 years we will have the benefit of hindsight.

@PJ6M

now I look at Sweden and realise we have hugely fucked up

See bigchocs post and make the realisation that your fuck up is in thinking that you have the requisite knowledge to form an opinion. You don't, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry...

Wow. Is there any need to be so fucking rude? Covid deaths are not the be all and end all. They are not the only thing that needs considering.

I think we had to try, like most countries, a lockdown to give the NHS time to get ready and to see whether it would help get us to a point where the virus had little opportunity to spread and we could restart 'normal' life.

But I think now we need to accept that having more lockdowns would simply be useless. The virus is here to stay.

I would also like us to be more like Sweden and continue with social distancing, hand-washing and mask-wearing.

More lockdowns mean we will just back to square one each time.

Also, I strongly believe that we need to balance the threat of the virus with how lockdowns affect our mental health and how it disrupts treatments for conditions like cancer. Not to mention the fact that the economy is now on a dire state.

I think we have gone too far with lockdowns and now it is time for some plain speaking and telling people that there is not going to be a miracle solution where no one is infected or dies from the virus...

What disturbs me most is the extent to which people overlook known risks and effects in favour of potential risks and effects.

So there is a worry that reducing restrictions might overwhelm the NHS (even though, while the NHS did struggle in March/April it wasn't overwhelmed and the Nightingale hospitals went practically unused). At the same time it is known, for certain, that unemployment has shot up. It is known, for certain, that people's mental health has suffered massively. It is known, for certain, that some people suffering with other illness who could have been saved with treatment died needlessly. There are other things that are not known for certain but are very predictable - the ongoing damage to the economy and the detrimental effect of high unemployment on population health, life expectancy and outcomes for children. And yet people have chosen the predictable, certain damage of lockdown over the potential, unproven effect of lifting lockdown. They have chosen to destroy people's lives despite the fact that they may not be avoiding infection with covid, only delaying it. In order to change the time at which they get a virus, they are damaging every single person in their society in some way. So it doesn't matter if you ever get the virus or not, you will definitely be negatively affected because there is no possible escape from the fallout of lockdown. Of course the wealthier you are the less you'll suffer, which I suppose explains a lot about why powerful people are so keen on lockdown - they're not the people who'll end up homeless.

At some point someone will have to admit that destroying everything in the hopes of controlling a virus that exists now in practically every part of the world is beyond crazy.

Governments are so often objectively incompetent and make so many mistakes. The very idea they could conjure the expertise and competence from their collective backsides to perpetrate the sorts of many layered conspiracies you see suggested is highly unlikely.

The reason that conspiracies are comforting (yes I said comforting!) is that assuming a human bad actor is at the root of so much suffering is more palatable than the possibility that we are at the whims of a random universe, that we don’t control anywhere near as much as we like to convince ourselves we do.

At its heart the notion that something funny happened between a bat and a pangolin and then somehow a human got involved that could lead to a new virus that could decimate the whole of humanity is pretty terrifying all by itself.

@GrumpiestOldWoman

You say 'part of the issue is that we don't want to throw the vulnerable under the bus.'

Yes because it's part of the issue, and only part if it.

You make a good point about children, but if covid runs unchecked then how are we meant to keep enough staff in school every day to teach them, even those who don't become life-threateningly ill will need some time off to recover?

If there's an outbreak of an illness in a school so bad that a lot of staff have to stay off, it makes sense to close the school until the situation improves - maybe a couple of weeks. Schools were closed for nearly 5 months, regardless of whether anyone was sick or not. How is that an improvement?

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Thankyou for your posts. They sum up everything I've been thinking for a while now, and I still don't know anyone who's had it!

"Covid isn't the only risk out there. And yet so many people seem to be acting as if it is and they are totally ignoring the suffering and death that is occurring as a result of those actions."

There are 2 situations to consider:
The early crisis - in the past - and dealing with the situation now and in Autumn & Winter

When the epidemic started and rocketed, COVID was indeed the overwhelming danger
Italy would have been overwhelmed if they hadn't locked down
as would other densely populated European countries

In all countries which locked down, total death from all causes rocketed during the worst 3 months COVID,
then came back to about normal levels before lockdown was lifted
So lockdown itself was not causing the high deaths

The UK had > 60,000 excess deaths, i.e. deaths above the historical average for that 3 month period
All English regions had high % excess deaths
Bergamo in Italy had 847% excess deaths
but Italy and the UK have been at normal level for several weeks now

The aftermath of recession, poverty and NHS queues can indeed kill thousands, but that is over years
and to be blunt, we've had this for austerity and every recession, but people don't notice unless it affects them

Now, with total deaths at normal levels, it is difficult to justify schools not reopening ft,
even if say pubs need to close to stop infection levels rising too high

@Dervel

Governments are so often objectively incompetent and make so many mistakes. The very idea they could conjure the expertise and competence from their collective backsides to perpetrate the sorts of many layered conspiracies you see suggested is highly unlikely.

The reason that conspiracies are comforting (yes I said comforting!) is that assuming a human bad actor is at the root of so much suffering is more palatable than the possibility that we are at the whims of a random universe, that we don’t control anywhere near as much as we like to convince ourselves we do.

At its heart the notion that something funny happened between a bat and a pangolin and then somehow a human got involved that could lead to a new virus that could decimate the whole of humanity is pretty terrifying all by itself.

I agree to an extent, although I would say it isn't virus that has 'decimated humanity.' The only real enemy humans have is themselves. The same humans who'll drink alcohol even though they know it's toxic, who'll eat fat even though they know it's bad for them, who'll drive a car even though pollution is destroying the earth and 1.25 million people die in car accidents every year, won't walk on a street because there is a 0.00000001% of catching an illness that isn't even very likely to make them sick, never mind kill them.

The utter nonsense of people never ceases to amaze me.

it makes sense to close the school until the situation improves - maybe a couple of weeks

I don't disagree with your sentiment but I don't think we'd be talking about a couple of weeks - it would take several months for the virus to rip through the whole community during which time there would be a series of staff absences meaning that there were never quite enough teachers.

Plus kids haven't been away from school for 5 months, they'd have been on holiday for some of this time anyway, so they've been deprived from school for maybe 3-and-a-bit months. I don't think that it would have been less if the virus had progressed unchecked.

@GrumpiestOldWoman

it makes sense to close the school until the situation improves - maybe a couple of weeks

I don't disagree with your sentiment but I don't think we'd be talking about a couple of weeks - it would take several months for the virus to rip through the whole community during which time there would be a series of staff absences meaning that there were never quite enough teachers.

Plus kids haven't been away from school for 5 months, they'd have been on holiday for some of this time anyway, so they've been deprived from school for maybe 3-and-a-bit months. I don't think that it would have been less if the virus had progressed unchecked.

Kids have been kept away from adult contact outside their own families for 5 months.

The education bit is worrying, as the children already struggling will be the ones to suffer the most. But IMO it's far more worrying to go from a situation where attendance at school is mandatory with checks carried out very quickly if a child doesn't turn up, to a situation where all outside contact was completely cut off, not just from school, but from friends, relatives, people in the community. I find it unbelievable that it ever happened. Children have been let down incredibly badly.

"destroying everything in the hopes of controlling a virus"

Central banks are predicting V-shaped recessions
i.e. a big hit this year, but climbing back to where we were within a couple of years

When assessing the risk of just abandoning all SD and ignoring COVID, it is no good looking at the deaths & illnesses
after we've had lockdown and when we still have many SD measures and restrictions

It's like after antibiotics have got a serious infection under control, claiming it's not serious after all

We ahould be cautiously continuing with what is already open and focus on reopening schools ft
and yes, shutting down pubs if the intection levels get too high

A scientist in the Times referred to each country having a "transmission budget" with R being increased by different amounts for schools, pubs, restaurants etc
and that each country needed to work out its own priorities for what it could have open.

Priority absolutely should be schools
for the sake of the kids' future decades as hopefully productive citizens

@mac12

I'm curious because someone told me they thought it was an overreaction but the govt won't back down now because it's too embarrassing to admit they got it wrong. And I just struggle to get my head around that.

It's as simple as 'You can't argue with stupid'

Children have been let down incredibly badly.

This I agree with wholeheartedly TDC

TheDailyCarbuncle

Thank you for persevering with the voice of reason and sense. Your posts are the best thing on MN

@BigChocFrenzy

"destroying everything in the hopes of controlling a virus"

Central banks are predicting V-shaped recessions
i.e. a big hit this year, but climbing back to where we were within a couple of years

When assessing the risk of just abandoning all SD and ignoring COVID, it is no good looking at the deaths & illnesses
after we've had lockdown and when we still have many SD measures and restrictions

It's like after antibiotics have got a serious infection under control, claiming it's not serious after all

We ahould be cautiously continuing with what is already open and focus on reopening schools ft
and yes, shutting down pubs if the intection levels get too high

A scientist in the Times referred to each country having a "transmission budget" with R being increased by different amounts for schools, pubs, restaurants etc
and that each country needed to work out its own priorities for what it could have open.

This is a genuine question - if someone is killed by lockdown is that death more acceptable/less tragic than a death from a virus?

What I'm trying to get at is how people who are pro-lockdown justify the fact that while it may delay people getting covid, it is also likely to kill other people. What makes the deaths of the people who are killed by lockdown rather than covid acceptable?

@GrumpiestOldWoman

11 million people a year across the world die of sepsis

Perhaps they do, but they don't overwhelm the hospital system in so doing. Part of our issue is that we don't want to throw the vulnerable under the bus. But part is that the number of people requiring treatment could rapidly exceed hospital capacity, and then even those who might be expected to recover with support (like Boris Johnson) wouldn't be treated and would die.

We have many types of treatment on hold, which is shitty, but if the hospital was literally full because of covid and the ambulance service overwhelmed and you had a stroke, heart attack, car accident - then what?

A healthy 40 year old may be a low risk for covid, but if we allow it to run unchecked then, in the absence of the option of hospital/oxygen treatment your risk might be a bit more, in the absence of being able to be hospitalised when you have a car accident or develop appendicitis your risk from covid increases a bit more again.

Also, viral load is significant in determining outcomes, regardless of age. In a country where covid is endemic and unchecked there's greater potential to be exposed to more of the virus, and thus increasing risk of a more serious case.

You'd think it was bloody obvious wouldn't you !!

@Barearseloverofthigh

TheDailyCarbuncle

Thank you for persevering with the voice of reason and sense. Your posts are the best thing on MN

Thanks @Barearseloverofthigh (quite a name btw!) - it's good to know at least some people agree with me because otherwise I may lose my mind entirely.

@TheDailyCarbuncle I've said this before on another post weeks ago, but exactly what you've said is how I feel!!!

You cannot catch sepsis from another person which makes it completely different to COVID.

I am not too concerned about the virus myself as I am young, female, white and relatively healthy however I take it seriously because I know some of my loved ones are at risk of getting seriously ill or dying from it.

As it is a new virus we have no idea of the long term impacts that it may cause. I agree that other diseases are killing people too but in no way do I feel dupped and I am going to always listen to scientists and doctors etc over people who have little to no knowledge of these things.

@Sunrise234

You cannot catch sepsis from another person which makes it completely different to COVID.

I am not too concerned about the virus myself as I am young, female, white and relatively healthy however I take it seriously because I know some of my loved ones are at risk of getting seriously ill or dying from it.

As it is a new virus we have no idea of the long term impacts that it may cause. I agree that other diseases are killing people too but in no way do I feel dupped and I am going to always listen to scientists and doctors etc over people who have little to no knowledge of these things.

As I have said seemingly 1 million times before - you don't catch sepsis, no, but you do catch the illness that causes the sepsis. In fact, sepsis is what has killed many covid patients. It is the result of an infection, any infection, which overwhelms your system. The way you catch infections is from other people. I don't know how that's not bloody obvious or why I have to say it so often but there you go.

You say you're worried about other people getting covid @Sunrise234 - you do realise that lockdown isn't there to prevent them from getting it? It's only to delay them getting it. It's not actually possible to completely avoid a virus that is out there in practically every part of the world. You may mention a vaccine, in which case I'll ask you how long you're willing to wait for a vaccine?

Where has the 5 months come from?

My school in the UK broke up the end of April - 2 weeks of which were Easter, 1 week was in May and then they break up the 3rd week of July.
The pupils missed out on 15% of their education but had the other 85% the rest of the year so their education won’t be extremely affected although other lockdowns may well do.

@TheDailyCarbuncle.

Do you not understand exponential growth? Or infection?

Clearly you think hundreds of thousands more deaths wouldn't have impacted the economy?

even though, while the NHS did struggle in March/April it wasn't overwhelmed and the Nightingale hospitals went practically unused)

YES BECAUSE WE WENT INTO LOCKDOWN.

🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️

Oh I give up. Despite the bloody obvious being pointed out to you, thread after thread, you hang onto the same nonsense & trying to explain anything to you is like trying to hold the damn back with a toothpick.

And anyone thinking we should have done the same as Sweden clearly doesn't understand the numbers either.

I'm also curious why people are so concerned about other people getting covid, but they're not concerned about them being stuck in an abusive family, losing their jobs or becoming suicidal? Why is there concern about people who get coronavirus but not people who will end up with terminal cancer due to a delayed diagnosis? Why is there concern about children spreading coronavirus but not concern about children stuck at home for months on end with no outside contact? Why is there concern about coronavirus (maybe, potentially) affecting the economy but not about lockdown (absolutely definitely and certainly) totally destroying the economy?

It's the total fixation that I find horrific - it's a zombie-like tunnel vision - it's like a person so terrified of shadows that they can't see they're backing themselves towards a cliff.