Are we delaying the inevitable?

[Slytherin]

I am wondering if we are delaying the inevitable here with continued lockdowns/social distancing etc.
These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control.
Surely the virus will continue to circulate whatever happens, until it has burnt itself out/finished its natural run?
Unless a vaccine/decent treatment is found sooner.

@longandwindingroad a vaccine isn't guaranteed though , its still many months of if it even happens
I think if we knew one was ready for say october it would be easier to deal with as an end would be in sight

@Comicstar

Also where do people think the government are getting the money from to pay for this economic crisis? They have borrowed billions, that will have to paid back by us all! There will be years of austerity and as a knock on effect more deaths from mental health, poverty etc. Hey ho though, those people/children don't matter do they.

Does all of that not make you realise that the economic consequences of uncontrolled Covid would be worse? The Tories don’t give a fuck about people’s lives and certainly wouldn’t trash the economy if that was the only consideration.

Good post @Mindy98

Does all of that not make you realise that the economic consequences of uncontrolled Covid would be worse? The Tories don’t give a fuck about people’s lives and certainly wouldn’t trash the economy if that was the only consideration

Agree

It's true literally worrying about shielded dparents going out. They want to go in the bank. Im trying to say if it's airborne the masks may not help. And bei g70+ not too sure them being organised enough with hand gel etc. Although i guess there is some outside shops now. Bur the gov saying thibgs are safe when they are not.
Also in some ways im not sure keeping elderly in and letting all young get it is wise as my other post the young would have a long life to live with permanent hesft or lung damage. And thry are likely the ones with young dependent dc and working.

@AlecTrevelyan006

22% of Covid deaths (source the Guardian) are under 65, so that about 10,000 deaths

considering the under 65s make up about 85% of the UK population that doesn't really help your argument. 15% of the population accounting for 68% of covid deaths highlights where the real issue is.

The point was solely to show why the drowning comparison doesn't work.

I think the point most are trying to make is that it is an illusion that we have a choice. We do not. There is choice where we can keep healthcare open for all cancer patients etc, businesses open, no impact on the economy, whilst a few old people die quietly in the corner, we all magically get herd immunity and life goes on.

That is not an alternative choice because it couldn’t happen with the virus circulating. There is no normal until we get a vaccine. Or adopt a zero Covid strategy like New Zealand.

I agree @IceCreamSummer20. Scotland’s also trying to pursue that strategy. It seems the only way for now.

It is not a simple as lockdown saves lives

So what do you think would have happened without lockdown? Do you think hospitals wouldn’t have filled up? Hospital staff wouldn’t have died and gone off sick and stressed? All areas of public life affected - social workers, teachers, refuse collectors, bus drivers, police, fire services, shop workers, all unwell. Lorry drivers unable to take goods from A to B = nothing in your local shop. Worldwide farming stagnated. Food shortages, no one to fix your internet, power outages, civil unrest.

Lockdown the world over has prevented far, far more than death.

Worldwide economic devastation will cause more suffering and deaths than this virus will. There are no easy solutions to be had.

I keep hearing people say this, and I can see that economic collapse and poverty also cause death.

But where are your facts to back up your assertion that it would cause more deaths than if the virus rampaged out of control?

You sound very certain of yourself, so I'm assuming you have some facts on which you base this cast iron conclusion? It's surely not a position you've adopted based on zero evidence is it?

Global population growth peaked in the 1960s. It's been falling ever since. Latest studies suggest it will no longer be growing by the end of this century.

Is this really true LongandWhining?

The 2019 forecast from the United Nation's Population Division shows that world population growth peaked at 2.1% per year in 1962, has since dropped to 1.0%, and could drop even further to 0.1% by 2100, a growth rate not seen since pre-industrial revolution days.

@uniglowooljumper

Tell you what why don’t you read all these posts on MN where people say can I just .... and everyone pipes up, yes of course you can just use common sense, or look at all the none SD going on now pubs etc have opened, packed beaches and the rest. Why are cases rising now? And more now amongst the young, who are not SD, and evidence is showing may suffer longer term health issues and it’s mainly as people are not following what’s required

I agree lockdowns are not sustainable long term, but if everyone followed the rules then it’s to be hoped there will be some form of non lockdown life until a vaccine or we learn to live with it in some way.

However what’s happening now, with people ignoring mean local lockdowns and who knows even a national one again

But if you think that’s ok then good for you

The last few posters have said what I've been thinking- what is this magical world in which the economy was able to keep chugging along whilst teachers, lorry drivers, bus/tube drivers, fast-food managers all just kept going to work whilst their colleagues were getting sick and dying around them. Lots of bus drivers did actually die. This isn't an imaginary risk.

Many people on Mumsnet are still too scared to go in restaurants or the office now even though the gov't is desperate for them to do so- imagine what their reaction would have been to have kept going at the height of the curve! In fact, it was public opinion appalled at the keeping going at Cheltenham, big events and so on, and seeing the bodies stacked up in ICU's in Italy that pressured the government into caving into lockdown in the first place (plus Macron of course).

You're assuming thàt the deaths and ongoing medical problems won't affect the economy. I haven't seen any actual data showing the affect of lockdown Vs letting it run rampant but I know it's not as clear cut as you believe.

The thing is, it’s possible to actually live your life and take fewer risks.

It’s not binary - stay home or go out spreading death.

I have been to supermarkets throughout. Take aways, walks, now shopping centres and restaurants. I exercise judgment. I clean my hands, I wear a mask if asked to.

I’m going on holiday.

I wouldn’t fancy the cinema. I haven’t been in others houses. I do t tags public transport where possible.

It’s not hard unless people are hard of thinking

Is this really true LongandWhining?

Yes, lol. Why would I lie! I see you already answered your own question though anyway 😁

CountessFrog. You're right and the more vulnerable want to take the measured and mitigated risks you mention.

When everything else opens too fast at once though and when they wee everyone breaking the rules they don't feel they can do even that. And it's depressing for my suster who is going through this.

Sadly it's not all about common sense. While some of it is I agree, not all have that luxury. (To be clear I am agreeing with you and expanding the debate not arguing).

A lot of people opposing lockdowns because of other deaths caused by NHS focusing on Covid. I do see where you're coming from and do share your concerns but please do realise that the less we lockdown, the less the NHS will be able to cope with other illnesses.

If we get it wrong now, the NHS won't cope. And normal care, operations, diagnoses, routine care will suffer even more.

We're all on the same side really. We all want the same thing but we're too confused to see it. We need to work together instead of being divisive.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/nhs-shutdown-risks-thousands-of-deaths-in-covid-19-second-wave

I get that, Mindy, yeah.

Pity people don’t just take responsibility and act with common sense. It’s not hard. It just rages restraint.

Young people haven’t grown up with that value though, they’ve grown up in a society where it’s every man for himself

In Manchester you can sit in a pub and socially distance, but you can't sit in a garden, in the fresh air and socially distance. It's ridiculous, you can only see people if you are spending money, not keeping safe.

But the rules have always been made to take into account as many people as possible. Many people in the north of England do not have large gardens. Small terraced houses only have tiny yards, if anything at all. That's why the rule about households has always included gardens

BTW Has anyone else noticed that in the forum, we are starting to talk again about things we talked about back in March and April

That is not an alternative choice because it couldn’t happen with the virus circulating. There is no normal until we get a vaccine. Or adopt a zero Covid strategy like New Zealand...

I'm in NZ and we are being told to ensure we have face masks for the 2nd wave of COVID. We have people arriving back to NZ and once in isolation, some are testing positive and being successfully treated.

However, recently there have been two cases leaving NZ and returning positive test results at their destination. These people claim they have been out in the community, so clearly NZ isn't free of COVID as a community spread disease either.

All up though, I don't know what the answer is and if ''natural selection'' should be allowed to run rampant. I worry for people who may be suffering MH issues from being excluded from social contact and interaction.

As a small business owner, I see enquiries for our work dwindling. Hearing about others already out of work. the Unemployment benefit isn't going to pay rents/mortgages and costs of living, and the bills keep rolling in.

And I see our greater community divided on the rights of citizens to return home, lashing out as taxpayers they should not be funding the stay-aways return.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know I don't like seeing the changes it's bringing out in people either.

These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control.

Two dinosaurs watching as an asteroid hurtles towards Earth one sunny afternoon in the Jurassic. "It's OK son, these events happen to unsure population reduction and control," the father dino says, as the little one gazes up trustingly. We all know how that ends.

Unfortunately the dinosaurs weren't able to come up with a plan to help save themselves, but we humans allegedly have more intelligence and are able to do so, or at least give it our best shot.

I agree, these events happen BUT they don't happen necessarily because the population is large, or needs reducing. That implies an outside intelligence that directs events (and if something out there really wants to reduce our population, then if Covid-19 doesn't do the trick they'll rustle up something else and carry on until that aim is achieved).

Humans still have the ability to use their brains to tackle problems. 2020's problem is Covid-19, and it's testing humanity quite severely at the moment, not just on a level of trying to combat the virus by developing a vaccine and treatments - it's also challenging us re our whole society and relationships.

We could just let nature run its course, but we have evolved beyond that, morally we are trying to help each other by preventing death if we can. Whether we are going about it in the right way is debatable, but that's the intention, I believe.

Either we say, OK this is the Apocalypse and no matter what we do, we are all doomed, or we can try to take some kind of control and do something about this very unfortunate situation.

Surely the virus will continue to circulate whatever happens, until it has burnt itself out/finished its natural run?

Yes it will circulate but that doesn't mean we should just give up and let it do so.

Restrictions on people that are contrary to human nature are not sustainable long term is my personal view. It is not realistic to expect t that people will not hug friends and family, have parties, sing in groups, form new relationships, have sex with someone outside their household etc for years on end.

My personal guess is that we might get some form of compliance through the Winter but come next Spring I think SD will be completely abandoned by pretty much everyone. Whatever the level of risk (to themselves or others) people will start to take it.

The answer is a vaccine or comprehensive treatment. I'm really hopeful that we will have bought ourselves just enough time to get something rolled out by the start of next year. I am extremely confident a vaccine will be found, it's just a question of timing. I've followed the Oxford vaccine from the start and I've got everything crossed!

@Comicstar

If you are under 60 you have more chance of dying from drowning than dying from Covid. The vunerable in society should be protected and everythingelse should reopen; until the virus has a lower infection rate. The only thing I think that should be postponed (for now) is large mass gatherings.

Surely both options depend (to some degree) on your behaviour?