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.

[quote Holyrivolli]@ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia. How much of the economy do you think will be left if we shut everything down for 1-3 years? Genuinely who do you think will pay for the NHS, pensions, education or the other things that the state pays for. It’s very easy to say that we need to save lives from COvid but how many lives will be lost if we crash the economy?[/quote]
No idea as that is the whole complex mess we are in. I do think in the absence of a medical cure that it all starts to unravel if we can actually finally the promised "world class" test, track, trace and isolate system in place. Make it compulsory and make it frequent as apparently there are certain incubation days where a carrier is not only asymptomatic and so unaware but also actively shredding the pesky potentially deadly disease and so sets off another super spreading cluster. If we can actually track this thing then obviously we can (non Covid people) behave accordingly without restraint.

I am simply advocating an once and for all hard painful get this disease eradicated approach rather than a cycle of constant pain and suffering with more lives lost and more living with possibly long term damage. I think we are going for localised mini lockdowns but then people are still not taking notice nor care.

I suspect the economy will only manage to hold out for a maximum of a year in the current quasi semi inactive form. Many of us are trying our upmost to work remotely (pay tax!) including some resemblance of childcare and tutoring but nothing will ever of course replace the real world and doing things in traditional ways than digitally. I am first to be fed up with remote tech digital nomad lifestyle without occasion and minimised in person communication. And I work internationally and so accustomed to online meetings covering different geographies and time zones. Still prefer the traditional and best methods though! In any case we are of course thankful and supper appreciative for most of the workforce and tax payers who cannot work remotely as critical key workers. We just need to do a real serious eradication lockdown or something innovative once and for all so that we don't carry on in a zombie state indefinitely. Not sure as to solutions but to take it more seriously like most overseas nations who have better Covid outcomes,

The exceptionally vulnerable were banged up to prevent them being bedblockers. If over 2m had rapidly fallen very ill as the first peak rose, then NHS wouid surefire have been overwhelmed.

The government weren't acting solely as benevolent to the individuals when they introduced shielding (a category with no age criteria). They were protecting the NHS and is capacity to treat others (the merely elderly they left out and about along with the pregnant, the obese and the 'flu-jab' group of second tier medical vulnerabilities)

[quote Pinkmakeupbag]@ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia just to be clear, are you saying that you'd be willing to stay under house arrest for 1-3 and up to 5 years to eradicate Covid or to wait until it's safe by your definition?

[/quote]
No not willing to go as far as 3-5 years! Possibly a year or half a year more but more seriously tacking this (as implemented overseas) to get that magical eradication so that never again will there be anymore unnecessary pain and suffering to lives and livelihoods. We just can't have half baked trial and error nonsense and a repeat cycle(s).

@lljkk I don't think the clinically vulnerable list is mostly elderly
It included all the children with blood disorders/cancer etc plus organ recipients plus all those who can't work but are of working age
You had people who were elderly and decided to shield while not needing to. And then people like my parents who are over 70 but not vulnerable

In this hypothetical, are we talking actual house arrest with monitored movement, unable to use parts of the house or garden if the device can't detect the monitor in those areas, having to call a police line to go anywhere including doing maintenance on the outside of the house, having police able to check on you and anyone in your household whenever, no one outside the household likely to organize food or other needs...or the lockdown experienced in the UK?

As crap as it was for many, and I can see why some think it was an overreaction or at least something that should not happen again with how things are now, UK lockdown/shielding is not house arrest and it is not prison. Making that comparison, even in a rather obvious hypothetical, sounds silly for many reasons.

No

If you want to stay in your house for 5 years, you do that. Don't expect the whole world to follow suit. And you don't anyway because you'll still want to have food, electricity, deliveries, mail, power etc. Those things don't happen by people staying at home. Its ok for those people to risk their lives though so that you have the luxury of feeling like you are completely safe from covid right?

The exceptionally vulnerable were banged up
No. Many of the most extremely vulnerable, i.e. most likely to die or become seriously ill weren't included. 25% of all deaths are diabetics. Not on the shielding list. The government massively bungled the list. They left off some of the most clinically vulnerable but included people taking immunosuppressants. These drugs are potential coronavirus treatments, and it would be interesting to know if people on them are underrepresented in hospital admissions and deaths.

No-one was 'banged up'. Shielding wasn't compulsory. It gave people the option of protection. They were allowed to protect themselves (if they choose) by not being forced to put their lives at risk by going to work, they got priority delivery slots, etc.

@SheepandCow

The exceptionally vulnerable were banged up No. Many of the most extremely vulnerable, i.e. most likely to die or become seriously ill weren't included. 25% of all deaths are diabetics. Not on the shielding list. The government massively bungled the list. They left off some of the most clinically vulnerable but included people taking immunosuppressants. These drugs are potential coronavirus treatments, and it would be interesting to know if people on them are underrepresented in hospital admissions and deaths.

No-one was 'banged up'. Shielding wasn't compulsory. It gave people the option of protection. They were allowed to protect themselves (if they choose) by not being forced to put their lives at risk by going to work, they got priority delivery slots, etc.

What immunosuppressants are potential coronavirus treatments?

Hooves I haven't the info to hand but there were a number of clinical trials going on. It's because more severe cases of coronavirus seem to be linked to over inflammation. Immunosuppressants can prevent that.

Here's some info on rheumatic arthritis. No increased risk of hospitalisation if on immunosuppressants (exception prednisolone). In fact it seems there's a lower risk.

www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jun/immunosuppressants-do-not-increase-covid-19-risk-people-rheumatic-diseases

What immunosuppressants are potential coronavirus treatments?

Well not sure if proven, but tocilizumab was bandied around as possibly being an effective treatment for covid-19.

Pretty sure I read one or two others of the "imab" drugs were thought to be a treatment too.

Shame I didn't see adalimumab named, as I jack that into myself with regularity.

Mind you, I neck Hydroxychloroquine twice a day, so according to Donald, I'm sorted.

[quote SheepandCow]Hooves I haven't the info to hand but there were a number of clinical trials going on. It's because more severe cases of coronavirus seem to be linked to over inflammation. Immunosuppressants can prevent that.

Here's some info on rheumatic arthritis. No increased risk of hospitalisation if on immunosuppressants (exception prednisolone). In fact it seems there's a lower risk.

www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jun/immunosuppressants-do-not-increase-covid-19-risk-people-rheumatic-diseases[/quote]
The one initially suggested was hydroxychloroquine - which isn't really an immunosuppressant and it's also been shown to have no benefit in Covid.

Immunosuppressants aren't just one drug so to say that people on immunosuppressants are not at risk from Covid is completely false. Not everyone on certain immunosuppressants is at higher risk, correct and those people weren't shielded. Other people were because the drugs they are on do our them at risk.

@lljkk

people don't really care about the vulnerable

Aw come on, that's patently absurd. Our entire society is in control measures precisely to protect the vulnerable. Most countries are taking this priority nowadays. And may I say, mostly vulnerable elderly. Societies never shut down like this before to stop spread of polio or smallpox to protect small children. Didn't even shut down like this to stop Spanish flu. Kids always were and still are bottom of the pile when it comes to 'vulnerable'.

Some folk question today whether what we're doing is best because we have free speech. Doesn't mean they all embrace conspiracy theories, or that the vulnerable are being neglected; that is extremely obviously untrue claim. We are where we are now precisely because a minority are being prioritised.

Actually many states in America did shut down for Spanish flu, and those that shut down hardest and longest had the strongest best economic recovery

Which shows to me that the key to this is getting and keeping levels very low

@PhilCornwall1

What immunosuppressants are potential coronavirus treatments?

Well not sure if proven, but tocilizumab was bandied around as possibly being an effective treatment for covid-19.

Pretty sure I read one or two others of the "imab" drugs were thought to be a treatment too.

Shame I didn't see adalimumab named, as I jack that into myself with regularity.

Mind you, I neck Hydroxychloroquine twice a day, so according to Donald, I'm sorted.

I think, from what I've read, they've all been discounted.

Certainly hydroxychloroquine has.

Remdesivere and dexamethasone are the two that have shown some positive effects but even then it seems it's very limited and under particular circumstances.

Dexamethasone is being used as a treatment whilst being on prednisolone put you into.the shielding category - both are steroids though so it's important not to generalise about this.

Here's some info on rheumatic arthritis. No increased risk of hospitalisation if on immunosuppressants (exception prednisolone). In fact it seems there's a lower risk.

For Rheumatoid Arthritis, the advice was if you are on a DMARD such as Methotrexate and a biologic such as adalimumab (e.g humira, imraldi, etc.) you were not extremely clinically vulnerable. You only were if you'd had steroid treatment within the last 3 months on top of that.

Cambridge trial on Baricitinib and Ravulizumab
cctu.org.uk/portfolio/COVID-19/TACTIC/TACTIC-R

Tocilizumab is part of the Recovery trial.
www.recoverytrial.net/

There's more but I haven't the time right now to find it all.

@gamerchick

For a disease with a mortality rate of 0.1% for example

I keep seeing this. For me it depends on how I knew for a fact how much this disease would affect me and others. Like for a fact, rather than the Russian roulette that's currently on the table.

If people are that bothered and just want to get it over with either way, then go lick a cash point or something. Get your 'long lasting immunity' if it exists and stfu already

^^THAT

Evidence seems mixed re steroids. Prednisolone seems to possibly increase risks (although more research is needed) but Dexamethasone is being used to treat seriously ill coronavirus patients.

I think it's wise to remain cautious if you're on any immunosuppressant but evidence so far suggests the risks are much less than they are for cardiovascular patients and diabetics.
Coronavirus seems as much as vascular and inflammatory disease as it is respiratory, possibly more so.

That said, yv

Pressed too soon!

I was just going to add that it's still important for everyone (immunosuppressant patient or not) to remain cautious. Initial hospitalisation or death are not the only risks. Long Covid seems to affect young and healthy people as much as anyone else.

By remain cautious, I don't mean we all lock ourselves away for years. There's a middle ground option.

Long Covid seems to affect young and healthy people as much as anyone else.

This will be the next thing doing the rounds on here. Every bugger is going to have this soon.

You can just imagine it in 18 months time on a thread:

OP: I'm feeling a bit shit and out of breath, quite hot too, do you think I've got Long Covid?

Response: No I don't, fuck off!!!

I would literally and figuratively throw all of you under the bus if it meant no more lockdown

I would literally and figuratively throw all of you under the bus if it meant no more lockdown

Lovely. Critical situations really bring the best out of some people.
The good new is, you have no such power. Enjoy your psychopathic ego trip

@Jussayingisall

I would literally and figuratively throw all of you under the bus if it meant no more lockdown

That's more like it!! Brutal honesty.

To be honest, I can agree with you. I said further up the thread, I've got absolutely no reason to protect randoms I don't know and for that matter ones I do know if it impacts on my ability to keep my job and pay the bills.

No - not any more. I've done my bit - I followed the rules exactly - I am now getting back to normal. I will take care not to infect my parents and wear masks in shops but I'm back travelling to work, having social gatherings etc the world can't stop - the vulnerable need to protect themselves now the rest of us can get back to normal. Sorry if that sounds harsh

I think now I've actually see a poster saying she would willingly facilitate my child's death, literally or metaphorically, it is time for me to leave MN for a while.