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.

Nope. Not doing that again. We complied last time but will not do that again for a virus which for the vast majority is not serious.

Yes this. My child’s education provision has been virtually non existent. And if this carries on much longer we won’t have a house for house arrest purposes.

Curb my social life for 2 weeks to save lives? Yes
Disrupt my child's preschool education? No
But we'd have no choice.

Sit on my arse and watch Netflix for a while to save lives... sign me up...

but who will take care of the patients' medication?

Does this hypothetical include the key workers or do we have to slog on through... again...

Personally when something like half a million people, 1 in 100 could die, I find people saying the vast majority are ok is pretty offensive

what percentage of people's lives horribly affected do you start to be concerned?

Perhaps you are more worried about job losses,..what if other people take the same attitude, that most people are unaffected by job losses so we should do nothing about them?

1% dead is ok by you, probably another 1% with long term serious health problems so I guess another 2% unemployed would be totally ok? Although people can recover from unemployment , so shall we let that rise another 4% , 8%? without doing anything about it

What percentage of people affected would you say was worth taking notice of?

No, I wouldn't.

The bottom line for me is my DS's well being is more important to me than saving lives of strangers who I don't know. Harsh to say it like that in black and white, but it's true.

Who would be paying for us all to stay at home?

Who would be looking after us to allow us all to stay at home?

What if when we are allowed to leave our homes again nothing has changed and the virus is still there?

What if us all staying under house arrest causes more deaths than it saves...

Pretty depressing that the fit and healthy have this attitude to the shielding and vulnerable: "just suck it up!"

Nobody gave a shit about them pre-covid 🤷‍♀️

Most "vulnerable" people have been managing their risk for years without the rest of society stopping for them, why do you expect it should be any different now?

For some people even a simple cold or chest infection could land them in ICU or even kill them. Covid is just another virus to add to the list.

1% dead is ok by you, probably another 1% with long term serious health problems so I guess another 2% unemployed would be totally ok? Although people can recover from unemployment , so shall we let that rise another 4% , 8%? without doing anything about it

Well it looks like it is getting close to your 8% - the Bank of England forecast the jobless rate would hit 7.5% at the end of this year and we are not doing anything about it. What percentage of job losses is ok by you before we do something about it?

uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-economy/uk-job-losses-hit-decade-high-worse-seen-ahead-idUKKCN2570QL

Absolutely not.

When a virus we knew nothing about was ripping around Europe, crippling local healthcare systems and we had no idea how to effectively treat it; yes. Now we know more about its transmission and treatments, have some processes in place to try and mitigate the risk of passing it on, have had time to sort out the PPE supply chain for hospitals etc; no. Both are different scenarios.

We live on an amazing age where we can stay connected, learn, and be entertained electronically. I’m also lucky enough to be able to wfh and even more lucky that I have a husband and child living with me

Voice of huge privilege speaking there.
Firstly because of the number of people who actually have to venture out and work to maintain the world so you can comfortably stay in, and secondly because millions dont have that option and will simply lose their jobs.

What on earth would happen if TV, internet, mobile phone networks were no longer seen as essential services.

Well, we shielded for months.

Does that count?

Everyone who did confirmed case/close contact isolation or quarantine - do they count?

The Emergency Powers Act contains safeguards (including need to review regularly all measures to see if they are necessary and proportionate) and a sunset clause. I saw Shami Chakrabharti talking about it at the time of its passing. She did not think that the ability to use extraordinary powers in extraordinary circumstances was inherently wrong. What was needed was scrutiny of how those powers were exercised.

Breaking the transmission chains remains the only tools we have against second peak, so containment of thise with particular risk factors remains one of the tools

No.

People really need to dial down the hysteria.

No

@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.

All this with bells on.

It makes far more sense for the vulnerable to be shielded away whilst the rest of us get on and keep the economy going. Putting everyone in the country on house arrest makes no sense whatsoever as a long term solution. The economy will then collapse and the NHS which is funded by the economy will disappear anyway. So, all that stays in "to protect the NHS" will be pointless because it will have no money to survive anyway.

No, my autistic daughters mental health is my number one priority at the moment. For that to improve, she needs normality. If that makes me selfish then I guess I'm selfish!

@BeyondMyWits

What on earth would happen if TV, internet, mobile phone networks were no longer seen as essential services.

Exactly. Netflix, alcohol and chocolate all essential apparently

Going to school not so much.

Strange world we live in.

it depends on how long
if you are talking about the current situation i was not on house arrest.

house arrest would be very hard, as no doubt it has been hard for people

The bottom line for me is my DS's well being is more important to me than saving lives of strangers who I don't know.

Of course it is. That’s human nature.

No ones going to help you pick up the pieces with your son, just as no ones going pay people’s bills when they lose their jobs. That’s just a fact.

No, no ,no

I am not prepared to trade lives for jobs

It seems to me that quite a few people are prepared to trade other people's lives for their jobs. I just wanted to see how they would feel if we took the same attitude to jobs as they were to lives. And it seems unpopular...who would have guessed!

The selfishness of people never fails t9 surprise me.

I believe, and history shows it to be true, that the way to minimise the loss of jobs and long term unemployment is to minimise the risk to life

Because otherwise, up to a third of the population, the vulnerable and the wealthy, won't be participating in your "normal" society until the problem has been made safe

save granny is the expression

this is why people agreed.

Nope