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

[Treesofwood]

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.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras it's not all masks and lockdowns. Look at Sweden, how they are managing the risk.
In Leicester there 1300 odd cases in July and only 7 required hospitalisation. We are not talking 1 in 5 needing hospital treatment.

Not RTFT but no and I realised today that the current daily death rate is about the same as number of deaths from RTAs at which point I previously said this all no longer makes sense.

Jrobhatch I agreed. Infact I would argue we aren't really very civilised if that means protecting the vulnerable. How many posters in here offer bedrooms to people sleeping on the street, or share their wages (after tax) with people who can't afford decent food for their children.

@Treesofwood

Hearhoovesthinkzebras it's not all masks and lockdowns. Look at Sweden, how they are managing the risk. In Leicester there 1300 odd cases in July and only 7 required hospitalisation. We are not talking 1 in 5 needing hospital treatment.

Sweden aren't managing though are they? When you compare them to other similar countries they are doing much worse. They just aren't comparable to the UK - the population density, cultural differences, even the set ups in schools are so different that the situation there wouldn't happen here.

Like I’ve said, I don’t see the wealthy vulnerable offering to help those facing into huge financial problems because of actions taken to protect them.

It's telling how posters who are advocating letting the virus rip through uncontrollably aren't able to explain the results of that action or the consequences.

Hell no. Fuck everyone else!

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

It's telling how posters who are advocating letting the virus rip through uncontrollably aren't able to explain the results of that action or the consequences.

Because nobody said that! You are making it up.

@toolatetooearly

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.

Yep!

The thread is about would you stay home to protect the vulnerable for longer, give up your child's education etc to which I would so no not for any longer. The thread is not "should we let it rip through communities?". Obviously not. Nobody is saying to abandon social distancing,masks etc.

Hearhooves. They are managing. Better than us. People still have and continued to have access to health care for other issues than covid. Children continued to receive an education. And the economy hasn't crashed. They don't enforce masks, or lockdowns.
I'm interested to know what you have done in the past to protect the vulnerable.

I would and am staying at home. I go out as infrequently as possible.

I would not be happy with house arrest.

Schools need to go back. Universities need to go back. People need to be at work.

There’s a balance,to be struck.

Many people live alone in Sweden. They closed secondary schools and universities.
The economy has suffered.
They have recently apologised for the deaths in care homes.
It's not exactly a shining example or one to follow.

Lock down didn't save my mum but it did mean that we weren't with her when she took her last breath. It meant a man being racked with guilt that he didn't get to tell the woman he was with for 60 years that he loved her one last time. It meant that friends and family were not there at her funeral (3 of us there that was all). It meant that we couldn't grieve properly. It meant that only now, 4 months on, we can start clearing her stuff from the home she shared with my dad. It meant that her ashes are still at dad's home because we were not allowed to scatter them in the place she wanted to.

Losing mum was hard enough, but what the country demanded of us in order to protect itself during lock down was inhumane. All I read during the peak was "think about the families of those dead", except nobody actually cared how we were affected. So no, I won't do another lock down because I don't want those who lose someone they love to have to go through that heartbreak and guilt, which is more crushing than the loss itself.

Can anyone answer this for me - were a lot of the deaths between March and June due to Covid being allowed to rip through care homes because they fucked up policy about discharging people back into homes etc? So it was disproportionately older very vulnerable people who were getting it? Not that that makes it OK of course, but is that true?

In France at least now, Covid is largely rising amongst younger people, and the death rate is hardly rising at all?

I saw a stat on the news a few weeks ago which said that if you have a Covid age of 90 (which factors in ethnicity, weight, other health conditions etc) you still only have a 1 in 48 chance of dying from it? I can't find a star for that since though, and it doesn't seem right, but then I think sometimes as humans we lose sight of cold hard statistics?

I need a hospital procedure. I don’t know when it will be.

Many of my normal appointments have been cancelled. I’ve just had one earlier week For the first time since before Christmas. I’ve gone backwards massively.

I don’t have answers. But if I don’t ge my normal medical stuff I’m going to be a bigger drain on the nhs.

@trappedsincesundaymorn I’m so sorry.

Losing mum was hard enough, but what the country demanded of us in order to protect itself during lock down was inhumane.

I totally agree with this. I’m sorry for your loss.

@ComtesseDeSpair

No. Look, I’ll be totally blunt about it: I feel like I’ve done my bit by falling into line with lockdown and losing out on a lot of things that were important to me in order to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed at peak and helping to save some lives that way. I’m not willing to take it any further. If there are still people alive who are very vulnerable, I think the onus is on them to put themselves under house arrest to help themselves rather than everyone around them do so. And I expect the feeling is mutual: if I needed them to help save my life for any other non-Covid reason I doubt they’d give me the time of day.

This is exactly my position too.

40% single household with no children.
About 20% cohabiting without children.
Considering that transmission is easiest at home...
It's easy to see why Sweden didn't have to lockdown like many other countries.
Still, it didn't perform better than neighbouring countries.

www.statista.com/statistics/526013/sweden-number-of-households-by-type/

So it was disproportionately older very vulnerable people who were getting it? Not that that makes it OK of course, but is that true?

I think that is true. However the flattened death rate is interesting, that’s happening in many places. I suspect it’s not just that younger people are getting it, but also that the dominant strain now is less virulent and/or viral loads are lower.

We go back to normal, infections rise...and so what? Death rates have not risen in line with the second waves, largely because the group infected are younger.

What is the evidence that COVID is worse for 0-50 age group than the flu? I'd be interested to see the data.

I think that is true. However the flattened death rate is interesting, that’s happening in many places. I suspect it’s not just that younger people are getting it, but also that the dominant strain now is less virulent and/or viral loads are lower.

Yes, I think there are other factors as well, better understand of the virus, treatments etc.

I just wonder if they had got control of the care homes at the beginning (I think guidance around and availability of PPE was a problem as well wasn't it?), would we have quite different numbers? I don't know!

Allwashedout flu is worse for that age group, I thought.

@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.

It has been for lots of people.

But hardly anyone cared about helping the vulnerable in the past.

Austerity, cuts to public services, the rise in food bank use and so on. Homelessness, substandard housing, lack of health care or even personal care provision for the elderly and disabled.

Now that your families might be at some sort of risk its all about how society should be doing something.

Fucking hypocrites