Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Would you be willing to be put under house arrest in order to save lives?

624 replies

Treesofwood · 19/08/2020 23:50

Just that really. Would you be willing to go to prison to save lives? Would you be willing to give up your children's right to an education to save lives? This whole situation brings up many philosophical questions for me, and my theoretical response is not actually the sane as my response when faced with the reality.

OP posts:
Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 20/08/2020 23:21

[quote whereorwhere]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras because if it was widespread it would be a choice of health v less likely to survive. Someone taking up a bed for a long time could prevent 3 healthy people from being treated so choices would have been made. Do you really believe it was otherwise? Kids and healthy adults were not kept inside for their own protection they were kept inside to keep the vulnerable and shielded from getting it. I'm not expecting you to be thankful (why should you be) but I do expect you to face reality [/quote]
Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

Healthy people in lockdown was to stop the NHS having too many ill people at one time. It really wasn't to protect the shielded - we were protecting ourselves. That's the reality - you locked down to protect the NHS in case you or your family needed it for Covid or non Covid, not to protect people like me.

PhilCornwall1 · 20/08/2020 23:24

Kids and healthy adults were not kept inside for their own protection they were kept inside to keep the vulnerable and shielded from getting it.

That's complete cobblers.

Holyrivolli · 20/08/2020 23:53

[quote SheepandCow]@Holyrivolli I wish more people like you would come on the How Awful Obese People Are, How Dare They Shorten Their Lives threads. People have the right to choose a shorter life in return for indulging in something they enjoy or that gives them stress relief. If it's smoking or eating lots of cake, that's their choice and they shouldn't be berated for it.

I don't personally agree with you about older people. I value older lives and it's always a tragedy in my view. I love hearing older people's stories and experience. However I respect your honesty. We can't all agree all of the time.[/quote]
@SheepandCow. Please show me where this thread is as I’m obese (totally self inflicted) so probably at way more risk than the supposedly vulnerable. I know I need to lose weight to save my life (as per the covid playbook) but I’m happy with our life as it is at present.

TableFlowerss · 20/08/2020 23:56

Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

Healthy people in lockdown was to stop the NHS having too many ill people at one time. It really wasn't to protect the shielded - we were protecting ourselves. That's the reality - you locked down to protect the NHS in case you or your family needed it for Covid or non Covid, not to protect people like me

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

But the NHS wouldn’t get overwhelmed with healthy young people with covid. (You might get the odd one out of a few thousand that there is an exception so like 0.04%)

This group could have carried on line normal and that be it but they were forced to stay in to help protect the spread of it across the general population.

The more it’s wide spread the more chance it will get passed to the vulnerable. You might have the husband being advised to shield, but then his wife has to still go to work. If she gets it then he’s going to get it.

Or a parent is in the shielding category for eg. Their teenage child can’t stay in indefinitely so if it’s wide spread there’s a good chance vulnerable people will get it, without leaving the house.

That’s why they had to stop the spread amongst everyone.

I really don’t know why you insist that the other pp is not right... they clearly are.

TableFlowerss · 20/08/2020 23:58

@PhilCornwall1

Kids and healthy adults were not kept inside for their own protection they were kept inside to keep the vulnerable and shielded from getting it.

That's complete cobblers.

It’s absolutely not cobblers. It couldn’t be more true!
toolatetooearly · 21/08/2020 00:02

Who's lives? My children? yes. People I've never met? no.

toolatetooearly · 21/08/2020 00:07

But also, we're all totally insignificant, and nothing happening right now will remotely matter 20 years, late alone in 100, when no one will remember any of us anyway. So in general, NO. Fuck it.

SheepandCow · 21/08/2020 00:12

@Holyrivolli Here's one.
I agree with you in some ways. I care very much about my elderly relatives and I generally enjoy the company of elderly people. I don't see their lives as expendable. But...I don't want to necessarily live a very long life myself. I want to enjoy the time I've got whilst I can. I love life but I don't want to end up with dementia or in a care home. I'd rather go sooner.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3996607-Surprised-at-numbers-of-overweight-adults-surely-more-needs-to-be-done

Inkpaperstars · 21/08/2020 00:17

I don't understand how your question relates to covid. With a pandemic it is not a case of being educated/free or saving lives.

The goal is not just to save lives but to prevent exponential growth of the virus to a natural peak...if that happened there would be no education going on, or people freely going about! You likely couldn't even access A and E. You wouldn't be going for a drink or earning a wage or seeing friends.

I haven't RTFT for which apologies but it seems you have completely misunderstood what is happening here.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 21/08/2020 01:55

@TableFlowerss

Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

Healthy people in lockdown was to stop the NHS having too many ill people at one time. It really wasn't to protect the shielded - we were protecting ourselves. That's the reality - you locked down to protect the NHS in case you or your family needed it for Covid or non Covid, not to protect people like me

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

But the NHS wouldn’t get overwhelmed with healthy young people with covid. (You might get the odd one out of a few thousand that there is an exception so like 0.04%)

This group could have carried on line normal and that be it but they were forced to stay in to help protect the spread of it across the general population.

The more it’s wide spread the more chance it will get passed to the vulnerable. You might have the husband being advised to shield, but then his wife has to still go to work. If she gets it then he’s going to get it.

Or a parent is in the shielding category for eg. Their teenage child can’t stay in indefinitely so if it’s wide spread there’s a good chance vulnerable people will get it, without leaving the house.

That’s why they had to stop the spread amongst everyone.

I really don’t know why you insist that the other pp is not right... they clearly are.

Who occupied all of the beds in hospital? It certainly wasn't the shielded.

Who was getting ill enough to need hospital care, do we know? We have data on who died but who was hospitalised?

If we look at the US now there are many younger people in hospital. Why are you so convinced that can't happen here?

whereorwhere · 21/08/2020 04:52

Well as it has no impact on you at all @Hearhoovesthinkzebras we might as well stop following all the rules

TheClaws · 21/08/2020 07:20

Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

TableFlowerss If the vulnerable stay home, they are much less likely to intersect with the virus, even in lockdown conditions. Your statement makes zero sense. The vulnerable were upside 24/7 - and yes, unlikely to catch it. You explained it yourself.

TableFlowerss · 21/08/2020 07:28

@TheClaws

Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

TableFlowerss If the vulnerable stay home, they are much less likely to intersect with the virus, even in lockdown conditions. Your statement makes zero sense. The vulnerable were upside 24/7 - and yes, unlikely to catch it. You explained it yourself.

I was quoting someone else. The bit you highlighted was another poster

**Can you explain how you staying in lockdown protected the shielded from getting it? We were inside 24/7 - how were we going to catch it?

Healthy people in lockdown was to stop the NHS having too many ill people at one time. It really wasn't to protect the shielded - we were protecting ourselves. That's the reality - you locked down to protect the NHS in case you or your family needed it for Covid or non Covid, not to protect people like me**

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras wrote the above.

This was my reply -

But the NHS wouldn’t get overwhelmed with healthy young people with covid. (You might get the odd one out of a few thousand that there is an exception so like 0.04%)

This group could have carried on line normal and that be it but they were forced to stay in to help protect the spread of it across the general population.

The more it’s wide spread the more chance it will get passed to the vulnerable. You might have the husband being advised to shield, but then his wife has to still go to work. If she gets it then he’s going to get it.

Or a parent is in the shielding category for eg. Their teenage child can’t stay in indefinitely so if it’s wide spread there’s a good chance vulnerable people will get it, without leaving the house.

That’s why they had to stop the spread amongst everyone.

I really don’t know why you insist that the other pp is not right... they clearly are.

TheClaws · 21/08/2020 07:53

Apologies TableFlowerss. I have to disagree with Hooves on that one. I think it is a case of both protecting the NHS and the vulnerable.

loulouljh · 21/08/2020 08:00

No. Whilst everyone staying at home may save some lives from a covid point of view...it will cost so many many more for other reasons.

FlySheMust · 21/08/2020 08:10

I think it's sad to read how many members of MN put themselves and their families so far above the rest of society. No one is more important than anyone else. We should be looking out for each other and protecting the vulnerable.

One day it may be you and yours.

Jrobhatch29 · 21/08/2020 08:12

@FlySheMust

I think it's sad to read how many members of MN put themselves and their families so far above the rest of society. No one is more important than anyone else. We should be looking out for each other and protecting the vulnerable.

One day it may be you and yours.

We have done that though, for months on end, at great expense to lots of people. How much longer can we realistically put the needs of others above our own?
FlySheMust · 21/08/2020 08:17

We have done that though, for months on end, at great expense to lots of people. How much longer can we realistically put the needs of others above our own?

For as long as it takes. It's the human thing to do. The law of the jungle really shouldn't apply in a civilised society.

You and yours don't matter any more or less than anyone else. We are all equally important.

Jrobhatch29 · 21/08/2020 08:20

I knew the reply was going to be "as long as it takes".

RaspberryRuff · 21/08/2020 08:23

@FlySheMust

I think it's sad to read how many members of MN put themselves and their families so far above the rest of society. No one is more important than anyone else. We should be looking out for each other and protecting the vulnerable.

One day it may be you and yours.

“The vulnerable” need protected from economic meltdown as much as from Covid.
Original poster
Treesofwood · 21/08/2020 08:23

Flyshemust people are driven to suicide over financial issues. Why do they matter less?
I agree with so many others, noone cared about spreading minor illnesses begore even though they could kill susceptible people including children. We could save lives by not driving for leisure. We could save lives by keeping teens on a strict curfew. Why do we not do this?

OP posts:
Jrobhatch29 · 21/08/2020 08:24

We won't be a civilised society if we all stay at home and everyone loses their jobs and can't pay their bills and we can't fund the basic services Hmm
You stay home and protect the vulnerable. I will go to work to keep a roof over my families head and protect the vulnerable in another way by making sure there are still services available.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 21/08/2020 08:25

We have done that though, for months on end, at great expense to lots of people. How much longer can we realistically put the needs of others above our own?

This has been explored so many times though. Covid hasn't gone away. If you just go back to normal the number of infections will start to grow exponentially - young and healthy people will catch it and even if they don't immediately need hospital care they could be left with serious long term issues. Also, the vulnerable (not the extremely vulnerable) will catch and will need hospital care - back to square one. The sick will include people that society needs to function so even if you and your family aren't seriously ill your lives won't be unaffected if there are food shortages, utility companies can't maintain services, shops can't open, schools stay shut, police and ambulance staff are sick.

I really can't understand what people like you are arguing for. Is it to just let the virus run through the population without any care as to who gets affected? How do you propose to manage it and stop it from shutting society just due to large numbers of workers being sick?

Original poster
Treesofwood · 21/08/2020 08:26

Flyshemust how have you protected the vulnerable in the past? People have sadly died unexpectedly and before their time before covid.

OP posts:
Jrobhatch29 · 21/08/2020 08:27

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

We have done that though, for months on end, at great expense to lots of people. How much longer can we realistically put the needs of others above our own?

This has been explored so many times though. Covid hasn't gone away. If you just go back to normal the number of infections will start to grow exponentially - young and healthy people will catch it and even if they don't immediately need hospital care they could be left with serious long term issues. Also, the vulnerable (not the extremely vulnerable) will catch and will need hospital care - back to square one. The sick will include people that society needs to function so even if you and your family aren't seriously ill your lives won't be unaffected if there are food shortages, utility companies can't maintain services, shops can't open, schools stay shut, police and ambulance staff are sick.

I really can't understand what people like you are arguing for. Is it to just let the virus run through the population without any care as to who gets affected? How do you propose to manage it and stop it from shutting society just due to large numbers of workers being sick?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras I refuse to engage with you. Plenty people have said the same argument yet it is always me you quote and pick at. Argue with someone else who is making the exact same point.