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.

I sort of agree and yet overwhelmed morgues, bodies on the streets and mass graves is a ducking terrifying prospect.

As an aside, does anyone know what the anti vaccination groups position on COVID vaccine is? ESP. Considering the rush to have one...

If the prime minister had to go on telly to tell people to wash their hands , we've got big problems anyway ..covid isn't the only killer disease or virus !

@Dontforgetyourbrolly

If the prime minister had to go on telly to tell people to wash their hands , we've got big problems anyway ..covid isn't the only killer disease or virus !

That was just to make him look like he had a handle on things. What he should have been doing was locking down a lot sooner.

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

But you see that is not the reason and its ridiculous as most (Lucky enough )people with a garden or yard, it big enough to have 2 people stood 2 metres apart. Even the tiniest of yards.

If they don't have yards or gardens then that's a different thing all together obviously.

Sweden didn't have as deep a lockdown, yet people stayed home, yet GDP dropped 8.6% in Q2 and still falling. UK dropped 20%, but is not expected to average at 8% for the year. The pandemic caused the contraction, not the lockdown. See any sensible newspaper for details.

400 people drown in the UK per year. Over 1000 under 60s have died this year so far from coronavirus. (Also most people recover quickly from near-miss drowning, but coronavirus in some cases has an extremely long recovery time. See ONS for details.

The Samaritans have stated there is no evidence of more suicides during lockdown, though there has been an impact on mental health. The ONS has not published suicide figures, so nobody has a figure. See Samaritans / ONS.

Hospitals over-run with covid, with no PPE left, with staff dying - would not be able to perform cancer treatment, hip replacement not anything else. That's quite apart from the increased death risk from putting very unwell people into an environment that's riddled with coronavirus, weak people struggle to survive this. Most hospitals have opened back up again, call the department responsible for your care if you don't have a new appointment and they can let you know expected dates.

Pandemics appear to be a mix of scary, annoying and inconvenient. That's no excuse for making untrue statements to try to "win" an argument.

In terms of the economy, it's not a zero sum game. I think it's a real fallacy to assume that if we hadn't locked down, we'd have all carried on as normal. Fear and uncertainty tends to make people spend less. Being ill tends to make people spend less. A large number of deaths (regardless of who died) is likely to cause panic, and changes in people's behaviour. A government being seen to do nothing or very little in the face of this would not have inspired confidence, and this would have likely caused economic damage.

There is no way out of a pandemic that doesn't involve a level of economic damage, so why not choose the route that saves the most people's lives?

I think I’m probably one of your “vulnerable people” as I’m on BP tablets and have a couple of other problems.

It’s heart-warming to know you care.

Do you care that I’m also an autistic single mum barely holding her shit together, have earned less than £1000 since March and this week have had to choose between replacing a broken fridge or food?

No, it’s not covid.

I’m much more likely to survive a dose of this thing than not, what I might NOT survive is another X-teen months with no cash or support.

Is it not true that in Scotland the average age of those who have died of Covid is actually HIGHER than the average age of death within Scotland?

There are many potential consequences if we had just ‘done nothing’, including:
Prison riots as guards go off sick
Hospitals unable to work safely and collapsing as staff in very high numbers go off sick, some with long term effects.
People in hospitals with other illnesses catching Covid19
Bus drivers going out in strike in protest of people dying
Security guards going sick, police officers going off sick, potential for civil unrest.
Schools closing as teachers go off sick all at once.

I could go on but there is no ‘normal’ anymore. Except in places like New Zealand, South Korea and even closer to home Denmark and Germany who have all massively upped their game to control Covid19 and as a consequence are able to operate more normally than us.

How about this for a radical idea? Since we are ALL going to die eventually, how about those who don't like the current rules top themselves now. I mean, they are going does anyway at some point, so why not now?

If you think this sounds crazy and unethical, then take a long hard look at some of the arguments for doing this to those of us who are vulnerable. Is it really any different?

does - to die

If we’d just let all the vulnerable die... how many suicides would have been caused by the grief?

I don't see it as a binary choice. It was right to lock down. We needed to get a better understanding of covid and how to treat it. But lockdown is a blunt tool that you can't use indefinitely. The impacts on the economy and other health are too great. We need to help people live alongside covid. Take measures to try to keep levels lowish but encourage people to be realistic about their actual risk of a poor outcome, encourage some social distancing but not lockdown again.

I can't see how you can eliminate a virus with so much asymptomatic spread that is already embedded here. People will still catch it and perhaps we need to target more resources on encouraging people to go for earlier treatment like they did in Germany. Earlier treatment means better outcomes so if you get covid now you may have a better outcome than those who caught it earlier in the pandemic.

It has been said before but unfortunately doesn't appear to have sunk in.

The option was never business as usual v lockdown. If we don't control covid at low levels it will quickly spiral and cause chaos as we have shops without sufficient staff, factories unable to produce food because of worker shortages, schools without the minimum number if staff well enough to come to work, etc - all of which would be hugely detrimental to the economy .

Covid progressing unchecked doesn't simply mean a cull of the elderly and vulnerable with no other ramifications, it would be devastating for all of us.

Is it not true that in Scotland the average age of those who have died of Covid is actually HIGHER than the average age of death within Scotland?
Since older people are more likely to die of covid but younger people are more likely to die of other things, basic maths would suggest this is inevitable.

How about this for a radical idea? Since we are ALL going to die eventually, how about those who don't like the current rules top themselves now. I mean, they are going die anyway at some point, so why not now?

If you think this sounds crazy and unethical, then take a long hard look at some of the arguments for doing this to those of us who are vulnerable. Is it really any different?

Good post

There is no way out of a pandemic that doesn't involve a level of economic damage, so why not choose the route that saves the most people's lives?

But this is the point OP is trying to make.... there will be massive casualties either way. Not sure a wrecked economy with mass unemployment, families losing homes and people unable to feed themselves is a great alternative. Add to this a rise in benefits claimants and fall in revenuefor services including the NHS and you will see we are screwed either way.

But you see that is not the reason and its ridiculous as most (Lucky enough )people with a garden or yard, it big enough to have 2 people stood 2 metres apart. Even the tiniest of yards.

I know family and friends who live in northern terraced housing, the old mill workers type, and the yards are not big enough for 2 people to social distance. Some of these houses are so tiny and some are back to backs. Also there are many in flats who only have small communal gardens

If the govt said we can all meet in gardens, for a lot of people it just wouldn't work. If they said only people with big gardens can meet, then that wouldnt work either because it would be seen as unfair

What do you think the reason is why gardens are included as household?

We should have focused on two things in my view:

Done far more to protect the elderly and vulnerable, both in care homes and in the community

Concentrated on reasonable social distancing and hygiene

And, once lockdown had happened to protect the nhs, it should have been lifted as soon as possible to prevent economic ruin and non-covid related deaths.
And the government should have been more transparent from the start, and explained how they are taking into account the consequences of the measures they are introducing.

The media have a lot to answer for in all of this. They helped stoke up the fear which led to public opinion forcing the government to do things they didn't originally seem to be planning to do.
I'd love to see laws passed which restrict the news media from making exaggerated claims, sensationalist headlines and misleading content. This clickbait news bullsh*t needs to stop. Too many people have shown they are far too susceptible to it. Government probably won't do anything about it, as it helps them if the public are scared so they can save them.

Coronavirus: For every three COVID-19 deaths, lockdown may have caused another two

The estimates, made by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and analysts from several government departments, suggest there were 38,500 excess deaths in England connected to COVID-19 between March and 1 May.

However, the report concludes 41% of those deaths were the result of missed medical care rather than the virus itself.

news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-lockdown-may-have-indirectly-caused-16000-excess-deaths-study-12044923

I know family and friends who live in northern terraced housing, the old mill workers type, and the yards are not big enough for 2 people to social distance. Some of these houses are so tiny and some are back to backs. Also there are many in flats who only have small communal gardens

Yes so the back the back to back ones obviously don't have gardens, and neither do the flats, so they wouldn't be included in this.

If the govt said we can all meet in gardens, for a lot of people it just wouldn't work. If they said only people with big gardens can meet, then that wouldnt work either because it would be seen as unfair

I really feel for those without garden space but it's not unfair to allow those who do, to safety use them.

If they reverted back to, you can have another household in your garden, if you can socially distance, of course it works better than meeting in a pub socially distancing. Which doesn't have to be a "big garden", just a little more than 2 metres, not talking field spaces.

Unfair, Sadly there will always be people who don't have what others have, the people with gardens should not be unable to utilise them safely because others live in flats. They should be able to safely use their own garden not putting themselves or others at risk.

How is it then fair to allow people to social distance in pubs, it's unfair on those who can't afford to go to the pub, do you agree? Or do you accept some people have or can afford things others can't.

What do you think the reason is why gardens are included as household?

I think as I said in my original post its because they want to kick start the economy and want people back out drinking and eating.

Do you think this government are doing it to try and create an even playing field for everyone, so we are all in the same boat @Flaxmeadow ??

Sorry @Flaxmeadow in my last post, it doesn't seem to have put your statements in bold, so it just looks like one long post by me, hopefully it can be deciphered.

once a virus is loose it can't easily be contained without measures that cause an insane amount of collateral damage. Covid 19 is here ( and almost everywhere) to stay. Planning should be about living with it, not naive plans to suppress to irradicate it.