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?

@TheDailyCarbuncle

We need a balance, not a lockdown nor a free for all.

Where that balance might be will shift as more is discovered or better treatments found.

As for you fire analogy, that is often what happens, an area is sacrificed in order to protect the greater good.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Yep!

If only politicians would explain the rational behind lockdown as clearly as you have (and the Swedish epidemiologist).

Instead we are treated like children. Who can't handle the truth. Layer upon layer of contradictory rules. Last minute U turns. Record national debt and children without education for 6 months!

All because the government is too afraid to admit that CV isn't going away. We all might get it. We need to help the most vulnerable shield. Ensure the health service doesn't become overwhelmed. And crack on!

But hey, you lockdown lovers carry on being panicked & hiding away and fucking up the economy

No one loves lockdown. No one wants the economy to crash. No one wants children to miss out on education. No one wants people to lose their jobs. But the majority of the experts agree that a lockdown was the best way to control the virus (it should have been sooner) and as it spreads through human to human transmission they it is obvious that stopping people having contact was going to reduce the spread (you don’t need a degree to work that one out). Without a lockdown the schools, hospitals and economy would have still suffered maybe even worse. Why are people struggling to understand that.

@Sunrise234

But hey, you lockdown lovers carry on being panicked & hiding away and fucking up the economy

No one loves lockdown. No one wants the economy to crash. No one wants children to miss out on education. No one wants people to lose their jobs. But the majority of the experts agree that a lockdown was the best way to control the virus (it should have been sooner) and as it spreads through human to human transmission they it is obvious that stopping people having contact was going to reduce the spread (you don’t need a degree to work that one out). Without a lockdown the schools, hospitals and economy would have still suffered maybe even worse. Why are people struggling to understand that.

I think that's the thing. People think you can control a virus. You can't. And it's the fault of the mixed messages from the government the stay alert/control the virus etc that people are misunderstanding

Interestingly my son’s school was one which got live remote teaching up and running as soon as it could. In some subjects they were ahead of schedule by the end of the Summer term, so it shows with the correct infrastructure in place it can be done.

Other schools I work with are looking at setting up specialist teachers teaching remotely across schools even if classes are actually in, which will help when hard to recruit teachers across the schools. But obviously will also help if schools have to close temporarily.

My DH’s firm was quite quiet to start with but has picked up considerably in the last few months and so should meet end of year target. They are also prioritising WFM and that will become the norm going forward. They are looking at reducing the office space they lease but will still have offices for people who want to work there or need to go in. But many meetings will be held virtually. They think this should save about £30k in mileage claims. Will obviously help the climate too with less commuting.

The way we work/educate may change even after lockdown is a distant memory (nightmare!)

You can't shield the "vulnerable" and Crack On!

There are millions of the vulnerable, elderly, obese/overweight, asthmatics, diabetics, heart conditions.... etc etc etc and thats before we got onto the BAME community.

Many of these people lead very productive working lives but somehow you expect them to lock themselves away for years on end.

askmehowiknow

Yes I think you’ve hit the nail on there head there.

ineedaholidaynow

That’s really good to hear. My school took a long time to get the hang of remote learning but now we have been given training to be better prepared for if it happens again.

I know lockdown has had many negatives but I think a lot of positives will come from it.
Many people have said mental health is a big issue with lockdown but I’ve found that a lot of people have said their mental health had improved.
I am hoping that a better work/life balance like some other countries have will come from all of this

@jasjas1973 yes you are completely right.
Our economy can’t survive with all those millions of people shielding which is why we couldn’t risk them getting sick or dying either.
But we didn’t know/still don’t know who is most at risk. Once we know more about the virus by looking at what’s happening in our own country and others then the rules will change. I know the shielding list has changed a couple times. There is no way we can lockdown for too long which is why they’re trying out local lockdowns.
I don’t think things will ever be completely normal but we will get used to wearing masks and washing our hands more so it will become our new normal. I think many people living in China choose to wear masks so I wonder if we’ll be a bit like that.

@ineedaholidaynow

But Sweden’s economy has taken a hit too hasn’t it

Yes it has, but it's largely due to the knock-on effect of the damage to the economies of other countries - Sweden depends a lot on trade and as countries are not trading, they're suffering. Had everyone kept on trading, perhaps at a reduced level, then the hit to everyone would have been milder.

While the economy is an important part of why I'm anti-lockdown, it's not actually the main thing I'm concerned about. Much of our economy is built on a false expectation of constant growth, which, quite frankly, could do with a kick in the nuts. I'm far more concerned about the societal impact it has when the government, swiftly and suddenly, fills people with fear to the extent that they are willing to accept and even demand the wholesale destruction of so many important and meaningful aspects of their lives, including the ability to get an education, contact with friends and family, even the ability to have a basic social life. It makes me worry about what's going on with people psychologically that they're willing to be told they can't see their own sister or daughter. I worry about a generation of kids who were told their exams were so so important, who studied hard and did their best, only to be told 'oh sorry, cancelled, you'll just get a cobbled together result, doesn't matter how you would have done in that all-important exam.' That sort of thing has a real, long term effect on people - it makes them feel hopeless, defeated, like there's no point in trying because it can just be pulled out from under you. That's true also of people who have worked hard to build businesses only to have them destroyed, who've sacrificed a lot for a career that career decimated. That widespread destruction of hope and striving is far worse than any economic effect IMO. It's beyond cruel and needs to have a very strong justification in order to even begin to be warranted. IMO it's not warranted in the slightest, it is way way beyond what's needed and it's indefensible.

[quote jasjas1973]@TheDailyCarbuncle

We need a balance, not a lockdown nor a free for all.

Where that balance might be will shift as more is discovered or better treatments found.

As for you fire analogy, that is often what happens, an area is sacrificed in order to protect the greater good.[/quote]
I wonder, when the full extent of the destruction caused by lockdown is made clear, will people with this sort of attitude - 'an area is sacrificed in order to protect the greater good' still believe the same thing. What's interesting is the extent to which people who believe this seem to think that they won't be the ones sacrificed at some point - the sacrifice is fine, as long as it's other people who are affected. I wonder when there's no money for the NHS or schools, will people consider that sacrifice worth it? Or when someone who's avoided covid is told they have cancer but they'll have to either pay for their treatment or die, will they consider that to be worth it?

I'm finding it hard to believe the extent to which people can't see how much they and their children are sacrificing for not very much return. Because you can't 'control the virus' - that's not how viruses work.

@TheDailyCarbuncle You're absolutely right in how we have been suppressed with fear & how we have all accepted the deaths of 10s of 1000s of the elderly in care homes as some sort of "price worth paying..."

Quite remarkable.

@jasjas1973

You can't shield the "vulnerable" and Crack On!

There are millions of the vulnerable, elderly, obese/overweight, asthmatics, diabetics, heart conditions.... etc etc etc and thats before we got onto the BAME community.

Many of these people lead very productive working lives but somehow you expect them to lock themselves away for years on end.

Of course not. But most of those you mentioned weren't in the shielding list. Which has now ended anyway.

We all have an individual risk. This of course doesn't translate to our individual outcome.

However some people may feel their individual risk precludes them from living a normal life during the pandemic. That could be their decision. Or supported by government in some circumstances. Others such as care home residents need as much protection as possible. For most of us we do indeed need to crack in

@Sunrise234

But hey, you lockdown lovers carry on being panicked & hiding away and fucking up the economy

No one loves lockdown. No one wants the economy to crash. No one wants children to miss out on education. No one wants people to lose their jobs. But the majority of the experts agree that a lockdown was the best way to control the virus (it should have been sooner) and as it spreads through human to human transmission they it is obvious that stopping people having contact was going to reduce the spread (you don’t need a degree to work that one out). Without a lockdown the schools, hospitals and economy would have still suffered maybe even worse. Why are people struggling to understand that.

I'm not struggling to understand anything. I can see that in Stockholm, a normal European city, that is like any other city and isn't different or special and doesn't have any special or magical virus control powers, they kept schools and businesses open and there was no huge collapse of everything, in fact they're doing fine and their numbers are dropping just like everyone else.

What's really infuriating is that while healthy, uninfected people were sitting at home pointlessly doing nothing, infected people were spreading the virus in care homes and hospitals. So the idea that lockdown was effective there is bollocks - healthy people doing nothing just amounts to months of people's lives being wasted needlessly.

There is no reason. Everything in life is what works well in their head.

[quote jasjas1973]@TheDailyCarbuncle You're absolutely right in how we have been suppressed with fear & how we have all accepted the deaths of 10s of 1000s of the elderly in care homes as some sort of "price worth paying..."

Quite remarkable.[/quote]
I genuinely don't understand this comment at all sorry.

You're the one who said about things being sacrificed, not me.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

That was in response to your Burn down the house analogy!
Many countries have decided to sacrifice economies and lives (of the elderly) in order to protect other things, deemed more important.

I completely disagree with this approach.

The idea that people who need protecting can shield while the rest "crack on" is far too simplistic.

My daughter is a single parent with two primary aged children. She is in her early 30's, slim, fit (cyclist and runner) with no health problems at all. The grandchildren are also fit and well. Our daughter can't "crack on" without our help and we are two older people (50's and 60's) with underlying health conditions.

We won't be the only family in the same boat, so what are we supposed to do? Sacrifice ourselves for the young? I hope you don't mind if I find that hard to stomach.

[quote jasjas1973]@TheDailyCarbuncle

That was in response to your Burn down the house analogy!
Many countries have decided to sacrifice economies and lives (of the elderly) in order to protect other things, deemed more important.

I completely disagree with this approach.[/quote]
Which countries haven't been shielding the elderly?

@knittingaddict

The idea that people who need protecting can shield while the rest "crack on" is far too simplistic.

My daughter is a single parent with two primary aged children. She is in her early 30's, slim, fit (cyclist and runner) with no health problems at all. The grandchildren are also fit and well. Our daughter can't "crack on" without our help and we are two older people (50's and 60's) with underlying health conditions.

We won't be the only family in the same boat, so what are we supposed to do? Sacrifice ourselves for the young? I hope you don't mind if I find that hard to stomach.

If your daughter can't possibly 'crack on' without your help, then how does lockdown help her?

Also the idea that you'd be 'sacrificing yourself for the young' is weird. Unless you're already very very unwell, your chances of dying of covid are very low, no matter what your health conditions are. There's a risk, of course, but there always was a risk - you could have caught flu, or developed shingles from a child with chicken pox, or caught bacterial meningitis. It's not the case that it was totally safe before and deadly now.

@knittingaddict

The idea that people who need protecting can shield while the rest "crack on" is far too simplistic.

My daughter is a single parent with two primary aged children. She is in her early 30's, slim, fit (cyclist and runner) with no health problems at all. The grandchildren are also fit and well. Our daughter can't "crack on" without our help and we are two older people (50's and 60's) with underlying health conditions.

We won't be the only family in the same boat, so what are we supposed to do? Sacrifice ourselves for the young? I hope you don't mind if I find that hard to stomach.

Of course it's up to individuals whether they want to see their grandchildren and feel safe doing so. And up to working parents to arrange childcare. But presumably people don't expect working age people not to be working?

@TheDailyCarbuncle

What's really infuriating is that while healthy, uninfected people were sitting at home pointlessly doing nothing, infected people were spreading the virus in care homes and hospitals

There was no testing available so only key workers were told to go into work and yes you’re correct they were spreading the virus. But imagine if everyone else who was sitting at home was going about their daily lives, they would have spread it much more quickly.

including the ability to get an education, contact with friends and family, even the ability to have a basic social life.
I worry about a generation of kids who were told their exams were so so important, who studied hard and did their best, only to be told 'oh sorry, cancelled, you'll just get a cobbled together result, doesn't matter how you would have done in that all-important exam.' That sort of thing has a real, long term effect on people - it makes them feel hopeless, defeated, like there's no point in trying because it can just be pulled out from under you

Only 15% of the academic year was missed which can be caught up or exams can be edited.
I agree that the social aspect is important but we all have phones and the internet. If we were locked away for months on end without having contact then this would be an issue but we weren’t. I hated not seeing my family but I knew I wouldn’t forgive myself if they got ill because of me.
I have also heard more people that it has had a more positive impact on their mental health as they had a better work/life balance, they had more time to exercise or take up a hobby and the time to join in with their child’s education.
I also know many pupils taking their GCSEs, A-levels and some that were meant to take their KS2 SATS and not one of them were unhappy about not taking the exams, especially not hopeless or defeated. They have been ecstatic. They can be a high achieving pupil all year but they are judged on one exam - many pupils are so stressed and anxious about these exams that they don’t do anywhere near as well as they would normally do in class but yet they are used to determine that persons ability. I think there is way too much focus on these exams and more in class assessment should be used. I hope that is one positive thing that comes from this.

It amazes me that people cannot understand some basic facts about Covid. Firstly, it is novel, so we are all vulnerable to infection (or most, at least).

Secondly, the growth is exponential. If you merely accept that an average Covid sufferer infects more than one person, that is the definition of exponential growth (dN/dt=kN with k>1). It is as simple as that.

Without lockdown, hospitals would have been overwhelmed. We also had a profound shortage of PPE. This has taken time to address and lockdown bought us that time. It also bought us time to study the virus and improve treatment protocols.

Whether we will lock down again is an open question. We are better prepared to treat patients and national lockdown is expensive. However the idiots not observing basic distancing and saying it is just ‘the flu’ may get us there. It is not a conspiracy but the lesser of two evils.

A lot of people who say ‘we will all eventually get it anyway’ clearly do not believe in a vaccine. I do and so do 95% of experts, and it could only be months away. We just need a small amount of patience.

And, if Covid won’t kill you, a few months of slightly poor ‘mental health’ certainly won’t.

I'm sorry Carbuncle but I just don't share your view of this virus. I'm a cautious person with conditions that do make me more at risk and I think we need to buy some time to learn more about how this disease works and what treatments can be developed.

Of course we shouldn't stay in lock down for a long period of time, but I do think that the government have opened up too much, too quickly and that rising cases are inevitable.

Young, fit people don't exist in a vacuum.

The death rate isn't a viewpoint, it's a fact. With covid, the chance of survival for people over the age of 80, many of whom will be frail and have many underlying condtions is greater than 85%. If you are aged 60-69 you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of dying of covid, if you get it. You are far, far more likely to have no symptoms at all than to die of it. It's worth remembering too that those figures were generated based on the numbers of people who died while they had a positive covid result - many of those people will have had other things contributing to their death besides covid.

Some people seem determined to believe they'll die from covid. The likelihood is very very small for the vast majority of people. Even people who are considered high risk still have a very high chance of recovery.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

The death rate isn't a viewpoint, it's a fact. With covid, the chance of survival for people over the age of 80, many of whom will be frail and have many underlying condtions is greater than 85%. If you are aged 60-69 you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of dying of covid, if you get it. You are far, far more likely to have no symptoms at all than to die of it. It's worth remembering too that those figures were generated based on the numbers of people who died while they had a positive covid result - many of those people will have had other things contributing to their death besides covid.

Some people seem determined to believe they'll die from covid. The likelihood is very very small for the vast majority of people. Even people who are considered high risk still have a very high chance of recovery.

Yes but a low death rare is contingent in adequate hospital care if necessary.

Boris Johnson is one if the survivors but if the healthcare system had been full and unable to admit him the outcome would have been very different.