Wow,look at the actual numbers on worldometer at the moment ..

[Layladylay234]

Current levels of infection: 7,007,039
Number of mild infections: 6,946,649 (99%)
Number of serious/critical cases: 60,390 (1%)

Do these numbers make anyone else think,what the fuck are we doing damaging the economy,our children's future and mental health for figures like this?

I can see both argument but please get the maths right.
World population 7.8 billion, 1% is 7.8 million so 1% we know have been infected I.e, tested postive. 0.001% worldwide are serious/critical, tragic for those but a VERY small number. The UK figures are even better we a population of approx 65 million and yesterday 77 were in ventilator bed thats just over 0.0001% of our population.

Unfortunately in any country exponential growth impacts staff numbers, and in some sectors - education / public services - this can be an issue we want to avoid

I don’t want to go back to closed businesses and furlough etc (so expensive) but I do want schools to have chance

So what about the 900,000 plus that have already died? And the 20m closed cases?

Infection rates certainly across Europe are increasing again, it’s a balancing act

Having had family members have this virus, and seen the impact on friends who have have loved ones die of it no it doesn’t make me wonder about ‘’what the fuck are we doing damaging the economy,our children's future and mental health for figures like this’

It’s clear that people catching this can suffer long term damage. Had people adhered to the guidelines then we might not be back at reduced contact across the country

Everyone has a part to play in this, lots aren’t doing their bit, so go blame them

But most of all, the most vulnerable can be protected while the rest of us get back to a nearly normal life.

The most vulnerable is calculated as those most likely to die. But there seems to be some evidence that there is not an overlapping Venn diagram between "most likely to die" and "most likely to develop LongCovid".

The loss of long-term health and ability to work is also a terrible tragedy- and it is likely to come hugely expensive to the nation: we will miss out on the working contribution of these people for a long time (possibly forever), they will need therapy, they may not be able to support themselves. We need more focus on this.

And if they are not the same people as the current "most vulnerable" category, then we need to rethink our categories before we start insisting that everybody not in the current category has to go back to normal life.

Ok in answer to your points.

A. It's not me who classifies the most at risk, it's doctors. But broadly it would be care home residents and people with particular health issues. They are protected by limiting exposure to risk, providing PPE where useful, providing private transport, home deliveries etc.

B. No I propose none of those things. But unfortunately if they are high risk for a disease that's currently spreading then their life will be limited unless they choose to factor in the increased risk.

C. The people needing hospital care will be accommodated in hospital, as they were during the peak of the crisis.

D. Why would large numbers of people be off sick? Most people won't have the infection. Of those who do, most will be asymptomatic or have a mild illness. Even at peak, I didn't hear of any workplaces with mass absence.

Yet again - you’re more likely to survive covid than die from it - that’s not the concern. The concern is it’s a novel virus. There is no natural immunity in the global population so it will spread through populations quicker than most health systems (hospitals, doctors, funeral services etc.) can cope with hastened by the fact that the people who provide those services are more prone to being unable to work due to sickness. Those small percentages translate into massive numbers that nobody has the resources to deal with if they all present in a short space or time. That’s the problem.

Your inability to comprehend the bigger picture and consequences is astoundingly dense. Or maybe psychotic. I can’t quite decide.

The UK figures are even better we a population of approx 65 million and yesterday 77 were in ventilator bed thats just over 0.0001% of our population.

So if you're not in a ventilator bed, having sustained damage to lungs, kidneys and heart is absolutely fine? Not being able to walk is absolutely fine?

Even at peak, I didn't hear of any workplaces with mass absence

Well you didn’t look then did you? The NHS and schools both had high levels of absence due to covid symptoms.

Yes, the world has done mad.

Three close family members are seriously ill, not corona related, but cannot get treatment...

@kimlo

No. Small numbers can become large numbers. If we had acted quicker in the first place lives could have been saved, and we could very quickly find outlrselves back in the position we were in before. Numbers were low then until they weren't.

As above.

If we lift restrictions too readily numbers will soar, people will die, other people (it seems) will suffer long term serious health problems.

Numbers are only low because we are taking sensible precautions (well, some of us are ). Fortunately the people who are seem to be enough to prevent wildly increasing numbers - but if the idiots had kept to the precautions perhaps we could have been in a much better state to re-open schools etc by now.

And there will still be those who think this is all a big over-reaction and won't follow the rules . . .

No. I’m just grateful to the government and decent members of society that are willing to help protect people like my 25yr old daughter, who would most surely be seriously ill or quite likely die, as would both her best friends.

I’ve been seriously financially affected by this and it might take years to recover. My credit rating is now completely fucked up, but I still have my darling daughter and her fiends still have theirs. For those that are helping protect our children, thank you.

YES. We are ruining our economy and mental health, for what?

@orangejuicer I lost a loved one to smoking-related disease. That was very sad, and very preventable. I would actually much rather have lost him to Covid, because disease is the way of the world and it always has been. We are only doing all these preventative measures (although some of them are window dressing) because we can afford to. And even then, we can't actually afford to. If my mother now dies of either heart disease or cancer, both of which are entirely possible, because she cannot get a doctor's appointment or treatment, I will be hopping mad.

I mean, it is still 60000 lives, isn't that the capacity of Wembly Stadium?

@Cornettoninja

Yet again - you’re more likely to survive covid than die from it - that’s not the concern. The concern is it’s a novel virus. There is no natural immunity in the global population so it will spread through populations quicker than most health systems (hospitals, doctors, funeral services etc.) can cope with hastened by the fact that the people who provide those services are more prone to being unable to work due to sickness. Those small percentages translate into massive numbers that nobody has the resources to deal with if they all present in a short space or time. That’s the problem.

Your inability to comprehend the bigger picture and consequences is astoundingly dense. Or maybe psychotic. I can’t quite decide.

Dense and psychotic? Bit of an over reaction? We flattened the curve. There were almost no measures in March beyond elbow bumping, and the infection ran unrestrained. This produced a spike that did not overwhelm the NHS or undertakers.

We are now taking many more sensible measures, testing is infinitely more available, and treatment protocols improved. There will be further infections and deaths, for sure. But if the first lot didn't overwhelm services then why assume gradual easing will?

With respect Costco - and I feel your grief, because my mam died of lung cancer, and I loved her to bits, even though she wasn't the easiest person in the world - if your relative died of a smoking-related disease, then they had likely brought it on themselves by choosing to smoke.

People suffering and dying of Covid aren't even remotely responsible for what is happening to them, and had little change of avoiding or changing the outcome of their illness.

@MorrisZapp

Ok in answer to your points.

A. It's not me who classifies the most at risk, it's doctors. But broadly it would be care home residents and people with particular health issues. They are protected by limiting exposure to risk, providing PPE where useful, providing private transport, home deliveries etc.

B. No I propose none of those things. But unfortunately if they are high risk for a disease that's currently spreading then their life will be limited unless they choose to factor in the increased risk.

C. The people needing hospital care will be accommodated in hospital, as they were during the peak of the crisis.

D. Why would large numbers of people be off sick? Most people won't have the infection. Of those who do, most will be asymptomatic or have a mild illness. Even at peak, I didn't hear of any workplaces with mass absence.

A)there are two categories of "vulnerable" Extremely clinically vulnerable (shielded) which is about 2.5,million people and vulnerable - 20 million people.

Which are you proposing to protect?

C) where Covid is spreading unchecked, hospitals will not be safe for the vulnerable and they won't have capacity to treat non Covid patients due to the high number of Covid patients and staff absence.

So your proposal is that the protected vulnerable population has no health care?

D)You are comparing what happened re infection and sickness rates with what happened during lockdown. What you are now proposing is allowing the virus to run, unchecked. That means higher infection rate and associated higher sickness absence. Covid with lockdown is not the same as Covid without lockdown.

You would also need to isolate anyone with a vulnerable person in their household. How can you send children to school or people to work, risking them catching a virus, and then send them home where a protected vulnerable person is? That isn't protecting the vulnerable. How will children be educated if they are isolated?

Yes.

Lockdowns don’t stop the virus they just delay it. Look at France and Spain, draconian lock downs followed by exponential second waves.
We’re all going to get it (most wont even notice) We just need to take sensible actions ie Sweden’s approach

It’s interesting that many posters are willing to uncritically accept the OP’s very crude analysis of the figures, but would jump on anything that was similarly crude analysis from the other direction.

You can no more infer with any confidence that 1% of cases are serious/critical from the raw data than you can infer that the case fatality rate is 3% (also from the raw data).

Statistics are helpful to our understanding, but when they are applied without any context or consideration to provide confirm a previously existing position, they are worse than useless, dangerous even.

I can’t make out if those applying statistics in this way are doing it knowing the flaws in their argument - in which case they are charlatans, or whether they are ignorant of the limitations and context of the figures they are using - in which case they are either being careless or stupid (charitably I’ll go with the careless).

Covid was thought to have a 2% fatality rate, so I that respect 1% is good

If you you look beyound covid, the human race is still exploding uncontrollably. I think I find the explosive rates of reproduction in humans a bit more worrisome. A point can we no longer sustain such growth?

We’re all going to get it (most wont even notice) We just need to take sensible actions ie Sweden’s approach

Only if there’s no vaccine... Why are you assuming there won’t be. That’s a particularly pessimistic position.

But if the first lot didn't overwhelm services then why assume gradual easing will?

Because we were in lockdown. We have never allowed it to run unchecked throughout the population. We locked down to stop that happening.

Why can you not see this? You are looking at the picture during lockdown and then assuming that the same will happen without lockdown.

If you you look beyound covid, the human race is still exploding uncontrollably. I think I find the explosive rates of reproduction in humans a bit more worrisome. A point can we no longer sustain such growth?

It’s not though. Birth rates have plummeted over the past 50 years. The reason the world population has increased is due to improved healthcare and living conditions meaning less infant mortality and people living a lot longer.

We just need to take sensible actions ie Sweden’s approach

Sweden has had many times more deaths per 100,000 of the population and their GDP has still suffered. Why would any country want to emulate them? We are also completely different in terms of population size, land mass and working and schooling patterns.