Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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.

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

415 replies

mac12 · 01/08/2020 17:18

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?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
GalesThisMorning · 02/08/2020 17:28

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras good post

itsgettingweird · 02/08/2020 17:28

@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.
Most people I know think the originally under reacted and aren't backing down from their stance they followed the science and threw a protective ring around care homes because they want to save face!
amusedtodeath1 · 02/08/2020 17:29

Okay, I know this will be ignored by those who have "decided” on behalf of the world that everything is just fine and anyone who doesn't is dumb as, but here goes.

The number of people who's lives are at risk of abuse or suicide is a small proportion of the population.

The number of people who can catch this virus is 100% of the population.

It's not that one groups needs outweigh the others, it's the math.

But carry on telling us all that abuse and suicide rates are way more important. Confused

mac12 · 02/08/2020 17:32

Eh, but it does grow exponentially? It's repeatedly shown that in every country going through a surge Confused
There is very likely attenuation over the summer months, with increased asymptomatic spread, but every surge follows exponential growth pattern. We're now at 18 million cases globally and accelerating fast

OP posts:
Jussayingisall · 02/08/2020 17:33

What about number of people unemployed. Number of businesses that won't survive. Lost education. Abuse of children. Starvation

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/08/2020 17:34

@Jussayingisall

What about number of people unemployed. Number of businesses that won't survive. Lost education. Abuse of children. Starvation
So explain how not locking down would have prevented this?
Bollss · 02/08/2020 17:35

@amusedtodeath1

Okay, I know this will be ignored by those who have "decided” on behalf of the world that everything is just fine and anyone who doesn't is dumb as, but here goes.

The number of people who's lives are at risk of abuse or suicide is a small proportion of the population.

The number of people who can catch this virus is 100% of the population.

It's not that one groups needs outweigh the others, it's the math.

But carry on telling us all that abuse and suicide rates are way more important. Confused

You're comparing two different things.

You're saying anyone can get covid. Well the counter to that is anyone can be abused.

You're saying that a small percentage of people are abused. Yes, and the counter to that is a small percentage of people are very ill with covid and an even smaller amount for.

Bollss · 02/08/2020 17:36

Sent to soon!

An even smaller amount die of it.

itsgettingweird · 02/08/2020 17:36

I also do t but this line nhs wasn't overwhelmed. Maybe not in regards to being able to cope with Covid patients and having ventilators. But it was overwhelmed. Services still aren't up and running fully and all those who've been pushed back 6 months are getting into the system along side all those who've waited 6 months and alongside all those who will need referrals for 6 months. That's 18 months worth of hospital time required whilst they are still running skeleton due to transmission risk.

Sunrise234 · 02/08/2020 17:41

The lockdown has increased unemployment rates that is true but along with it came the furlough scheme. Imagine if we were all told to just get on with it and those who are most vulnerable already have to then decide wether to lose their jobs and income or risk their lives.

GalesThisMorning · 02/08/2020 17:41

@Jussayingisall

What about number of people unemployed. Number of businesses that won't survive. Lost education. Abuse of children. Starvation
I dont think you understand what you're saying. It doesn't work like that. Not locking down would have led to more deaths. It would not have prevented starvation and unemployment. How would it have? Can you try to explain your argument a bit better?
itsgettingweird · 02/08/2020 17:45

@BatShite

My mum is still convinced that if she got it, she’d end up on a ventilator, despite having no underlying health conditions.

This is a fair few people I know. Generally under 30, no health issues, yet convinced they would drop dead. Its bizarre. Even with lockdown relaxed, they spend their days going off it with others for daring to go out of the house as its 'so dangerous' Hmm

On the other hand, people I know who would come under the high risk category really..seem to be unconcerned, and there is an element of 'something will kill me someday, why worry' about it.

The switcharound is..weirding me out at times!

I've seen that too!

My mum has terminal cancer. She said she ain't staying at home whilst the cancer kills her just so covid doesn't!

She did shield during initial phase and was having chemo (that failed) at a that time. She is careful and has always worn masks and not gone to crowded places.

But our town has had 2 cases in 17 days. She is realistic that the cancer is her biggest risk at this time.
She has retired from teaching though because that really was a bigger risk.

Jussayingisall · 02/08/2020 17:48

The people dying from this have children in their sixties. They won't be starving.

Sunrise234 · 02/08/2020 17:52

That’s ok then as long as it’s only older people dying who we really don’t care about.

Jussayingisall · 02/08/2020 17:53

It's not okay but we have never locked up before like this and it was the same demographic affected

Sunrise234 · 02/08/2020 17:56

That’s because we’ve not had anything like this before and it’s to stop it getting worse.

Surely you must think to yourself why is the entire world taking this really seriously and locking things down when we’ve had bird flu, swine flu etc and never did before.

Bollss · 02/08/2020 17:59

@Sunrise234

That’s because we’ve not had anything like this before and it’s to stop it getting worse.

Surely you must think to yourself why is the entire world taking this really seriously and locking things down when we’ve had bird flu, swine flu etc and never did before.

I think it's a lot to do with the "instant news" times we live in. I seriously cannot imagine this happening say 20 or 25 years ago.

The constant information is enough to terrify anyone, the government know they are being reported on 24/7. Feedback is immediate.

We didn't used to have that. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Jussayingisall · 02/08/2020 18:00

No I think the world is a different place these days. I can't remember a flu vaccine when I was a kid and old people were dying in the thousands. Can't remember that lockdown either.

Sunrise234 · 02/08/2020 18:10

I think also because we never had international travel like we do now. So if something started in one country it wouldn’t spread worldwide.

The reason we don’t lockdown for the normal flu is because even though the strains can change we know enough about it to know who’s affected and what can be done etc but when it’s a new disease it takes time to understand it. All we knew was that it was spreading fast and people were either dying or becoming ill so couldn’t do their jobs properly anyway. So they said lockdown to slow the spread.

A new disease could have easily killed all under 30s really quickly and then we would have been thankful that there was a lockdown.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 02/08/2020 18:14

@Jussayingisall

The people dying from this have children in their sixties. They won't be starving.
Firstly, that's not necessarily true. Secondly, do older people dying not matter then? Thirdly, it's not just about people dying. People can still be very ill, develop.long term complications or need hospitalisation, at any age.

Please explain how not locking down would have prevented all of the things you are so worried lockdown has caused.

Bollss · 02/08/2020 18:15

@Sunrise234

I think also because we never had international travel like we do now. So if something started in one country it wouldn’t spread worldwide.

The reason we don’t lockdown for the normal flu is because even though the strains can change we know enough about it to know who’s affected and what can be done etc but when it’s a new disease it takes time to understand it. All we knew was that it was spreading fast and people were either dying or becoming ill so couldn’t do their jobs properly anyway. So they said lockdown to slow the spread.

A new disease could have easily killed all under 30s really quickly and then we would have been thankful that there was a lockdown.

Precisely and that's why I supported lockdown when it happened. It's everything since I think has been a total fuck up.

Though in reality we won't know whether it was worth it until some time in the future will we.

Sunrise234 · 02/08/2020 18:23

I don’t think everything since has been a total fuck up (apart from the confusing rules) I actually think the fuck up was before the lockdown.
The numbers are going back up and if we reopen everything the numbers will get too high so we’ll have to lockdown again which seems madness. I think the local lockdowns are good in theory but then it only takes one person to go on holiday and bring it back so they’ll keep getting locked down again. So I have no idea what the solution would be.

zaffa · 02/08/2020 18:28

@Jussayingisall

They are equally as qualified and nothing to do with trump. Search yourself I am not Google.
Gosh, you're very cagey about your scientific experts that you're listening to. I prefer to listen to the real experts, not Dr Google and his band of conspiracy theorists .... Hmm
Bollss · 02/08/2020 18:31

The thing is hasn't lockdown just prolonged this whole thing. As in, pandemic happens, ya can't stop it, so you try and slow it down. And ok we did that. Round of applause for us. But now we have to get back to normal. Cases will rise as soon as we open back up. Obvious. Always been obvious. Was totally acceptable when we were trying to flatten the curve.

Now apparently totally unacceptable and we must stop cases happening at all costs. That ain't what we signed up for.

Yes Sweden has had lots of deaths. But they will get back to normal considerably faster than we will by opening and closing things all day bleeding every day.

Basically without a vaccine this is our life now. Sorry but no, totally unacceptable. I'd rather die than live like this for another 6 months, a year, two years. It's not a life it's an existence. It's mental torture not knowing what will happen next, not having any control over your own life. You can't plan anything without the huge risk of losing any money you spent on it and of course being hugely dissapointed every time something doesn't go to plan.

How many people are we saving here?

Because, arguably, many (no not all I won't even say most) of the people who died of this were v vulnerable and something as simple as a bad bout of noro could have taken their lives, and in the next year or so would have.

Equally we've now caused early deaths of around 60k cancer patients many of whom with the right treatment wouldn't have died in the next year or so. Many of them much younger than covid victims.

Also abuse victims who wouldn't otherwise have died, and the whole generation who will grow up in a shite economy and have a lower life expectancy and worse health outcomes which come alongside that.

It's a hard balancing act. I wouldn't like to be responsible for it and I think it'll be the end of Boris Johnsons political career. It could have been the moment he proved he wasn't one big fucking joke, but alas.

Jussayingisall · 02/08/2020 18:32

unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/

This is one Nobel winning scientist opinion.