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.

Stop being so hideously insensitive. Take a lesson in empathy.

Maybe you should try and do the same. We've lost our year's household income to shield you, and we're clearly getting fuck-all thanks for that.

Or is it hear, hear?

Hence why we need teachers

^^^

This. With bells on.

Sorry, that was to InDeoEstMeaFiducia

You’ve nailed it

@MaxNormal

Stop being so hideously insensitive. Take a lesson in empathy.

Maybe you should try and do the same. We've lost our year's household income to shield you, and we're clearly getting fuck-all thanks for that.

This! And plenty more will soon be unemployed once the furlough scheme ends having exhausted their savings and unable to pay their rent or mortgage, having to wait 5 weeks for UC (which won't cover their mortgage or their rent all the way) but it's still not enough.

People seem to be almost doing a dance to invoke an increase in cases to prove their doom mongering right and gleeful at the prospect of another lockdown because this has all moved from the paradigm of not wanting to overwhelm the healthcare service to Covid elimination.

Got 6 people testing positive with Covid at a school? Close the entire thing down. Got 6 people with chickenpox, influenza, a bad rhinovirus or norovirus at the school? Business as usual because it's not Covid so not as serious.

This is ridiculous.

No, the risk of serious disease at a population level is not very high. Public health measures are about protecting the population not the individual and it's simply not justified and such measures have other consequences (people are dying who shouldn't due to delayed diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other diseases, mh problems escalated to suicide, economic problems also cause suicides). The best way forward is to issue bespoke advice to people based on their risk level eg advice to partially shield, avoid indoor contact etc. to those at high risk, general hygiene advice to us all and masks in high risk situations

How much of your rights would you give up for others?

Wrong question because the choice will not be mine. I would like the Swedish strategy, fwiw, or even Dutch one -- both are open about using mostly natural infection to achieve soonest herd immunity rather than trying to strictly control & hope/wait for a vaccine.

I was asking theoretically

If all control measures became voluntary then I would still have to go along with what was asked or required... I don't think my swimming pool would just reopen as it used to be, for instance, nor would the schools or courses be available for DC. So again, I have Weak Agency in this. It doesn't matter "theoretically" because the choices 2 do things as we used to them will continue not to exist.

InDeoEstMeaFiducia yes exactly this.
And all the same people sniffily saying that we don't need xy or z industry (travel, events) are certainly not jumping up and down to ensure that they are supported so as not to go under in the interim, or agitating for staff to receive extended furlough.
The thinking seems to be stay the fuck at home and starve to keep me safe. If you don't, you're selfish.

@InDeoEstMeaFiducia

You have to wonder why society and so much taxpayers money is spent on schools, teachers, assistants, etc, basically an entire education system for children when all along, we were all perfectly capable of educating them at home whilst also working (either at home or away from it). I mean, since it's entirely possible for everyone to home educate children, what's the point of schools and the education system? Think of hte money that could be saved!

And childcare, child labour laws and laws regarding safeguarding children. All along, we were able to leave 11-year-olds alone all day (because they're in secondary school, after all) to fend for themselves and educate themselves, too, whilst those who are older are able to pretty much run their lives on their own. Silly society, creating all these rules to protect children from neglect, adult predators, being exploited by adults. All they need is Zoom and YouTube and a microwave and they're perfectly capable of exercising the good judgement adults have to not set the house on fire, recognise predators online, educate themselves. Who knew?

They also don't need socialisation, it's not as important as adult lives at all. Their education and lives, not as important at all. Covid is king.

Absolutely

Ps we worked throughout and had suspected covid in March, main symptom was loss of taste and smell which hasn't fully returned.!

Your question is too vague. Would I give up a years education for my dc if there were specific people’s lives on the line and it was a straight choice between education for us or death for them, then obviously, I’d sacrifice the education.

But would I give up a years education on the off chance that it may have some small contributing factor in a stranger who is already near the end off their life dying a few months earlier then they would anyway, then no, I wouldn’t.

Those of us that are not vulnerable have already done our bit to protect others at our own expense, now the vulnerable need to protect themselves and let the rest of us live our lives.

That is a very heartless comment.

The exceptionally vulnerable are not all terminal, and 90,000 of the 2.5 million on the original list are children.

Those of us that are not vulnerable have already done our bit to protect others at our own expense, now the vulnerable need to protect themselves and let the rest of us live our lives.

Exactly this. The number of vulnerable people are in the minority, the majority should not be restricted in order to protect them.

If vulnerable people still feel unsafe, then they must take whatever steps they see fit to protect themselves and not expect others to continue. People have put their lives on hold for long enough.

I say this as someone who is vulnerable and in the words of my specialist nurse "if you get it, you're more than likely a goner.", but it's down to me, not others to take the necessary steps to reduce the risk of that happening.

The exceptionally vulnerable are not all terminal,

I realise this, and I know that many of the people who are vulnerable to Covid are living fulfilling lives with no indication to the rest of the world that they might be more susceptible. But still, it is time now for them to protect themselves or take take their chances. There are disadvantages in life other than vulnerable to Covid, and you can’t expect people to screw up their own life chances just in case it makes a difference to one of the very few people who would likely not recover from it.

My friend is one of the people who will almost certainly die is she catches Covid 19, her immunologist has told her she can have some limited freedom for now but to go back into strict shielding again in September. She knows she has to be responsible for herself.

I was shielding, not nearly as vulnerable as my friend though and I recognise I will have to be more careful than the majority of the population.

Lockdown has damaged so many people and we need to move closer to normality.

Yes I would. Both be locked up in a hotel and give up a year of my children’s education.

@nether

That is a very heartless comment.

The exceptionally vulnerable are not all terminal, and 90,000 of the 2.5 million on the original list are children.

No, they're not all terminal.

But most of them have had to protect themselves from the myriad of other freely circulating viruses that could have made them seriously ill, hospitalised or even killed them.

No one gave a shit about them then, did they?

Hypocrites.

Yes I would. Both be locked up in a hotel and give up a year of my children’s education.

Why a year though? When does there become an acceptable level of risk.

It's like the people who believed in the magic month of September. Now it's rolling around people are realising that there's still a risk there. So people are saying January, or next March.

If and when there's a vaccine it still won't eliminate the risk.

@MaxNormal you haven't lost a years income to shield us, you lost a years income (4 months actually) to protect the nhs. Didn't you watch the news/read the paper? Lockdown was nothing to do with shielding.

But most of them have had to protect themselves from the myriad of other freely circulating viruses that could have made them seriously ill, hospitalised or even killed them

Not really, there has been none other where the whole population is non-immune, no vaccine, treatments uncertain.

@Violabrit four months? God that would have been amazing. Still no sign of any income on the horizon, btw.
But you're welcome.

'You have to wonder why society and so much taxpayers money is spent on schools, teachers, assistants, etc, basically an entire education system for children when all along, we were all perfectly capable of educating them at home whilst also working (either at home or away from it). I mean, since it's entirely possible for everyone to home educate children, what's the point of schools and the education system? Think of hte money that could be saved!

And childcare, child labour laws and laws regarding safeguarding children. All along, we were able to leave 11-year-olds alone all day (because they're in secondary school, after all) to fend for themselves and educate themselves, too, whilst those who are older are able to pretty much run their lives on their own. Silly society, creating all these rules to protect children from neglect, adult predators, being exploited by adults. All they need is Zoom and YouTube and a microwave and they're perfectly capable of exercising the good judgement adults have to not set the house on fire, recognise predators online, educate themselves. Who knew?

They also don't need socialisation, it's not as important as adult lives at all. Their education and lives, not as important at all. Covid is king.'

Over the top. Took you a while to type that out didn't it.
It's temporary. Get a grip.

It's temporary. Get a grip.

What was that about lack of empathy?

How can I empathise with three paragraphs of sarcasm?

Over the top

Not at all. It obviously resonates with many.

It's temporary

How temporary? My child already has had virtually no teacher input since March and we’ve lots in the education sector clamouring for that to be extended. What are we waiting for? A vaccine? That could be years.

I used to live in a world where education was seen as an essential service. Seems that’s gone out the window.

Get a grip

Aren’t you lovely