Doesn't it all come down to 2 choices ?

[disorganisedsecretsquirrel]

A gazillion (and 1) threads about Covid.. but in essence does it not boil down to 2 simple choices.

1. Live a completely normal life, with kids in school /at Uni, people socialising exactly how they wish but knowing that this choice WILL kill a higher percentage of people dead before they otherwise would be..

OR

1. We stop . Just Hunker Down. To the bare minimum through winter. Until the spread is decreased to negligible levels. With the economy / mental health and education taking the hit. For six months. ? But fewer deaths.

As far as I can see. Those are the stark choices.

Which would you do ?

[Snog]

This very much isn't a binary situation and trying to view it as such is unrealistic, over simplistic and unhelpful.

[Wavescrashingonthebeach]

@VioletCharlotte

Agreed. Saying "Im happy to bunker down" screams of privilege.

[ReeseWitherfork]

Another question about NZ: how did they lock down so hard? I’m confused who was working in the food industry and how people were going food shopping, the pharmaceutical industry, the utility companies, WiFi and TV companies, the petrochemical industry. I don’t think the U.K. did it half assed, I think we locked down realistically. But maybe I’m missing something. I must admit I’ve not been overly engaged in listening to conversations about what could/should have been so I have probably missed a lot.

[Chocolategirl1]

Option 1. As others have said, this virus isn’t going to disappear. Even with a vaccine it would take possibly decades to eradicate surely, given that it has spread worldwide. All this social distancing was never about preventing deaths. It was about spreading the deaths out over a longer period of time. And that’s probably still the plan, because our NHS has been so poorly funded over the years they are concerned it cannot cope with a massive increase in critical cases, especially not over winter. The best strategy would have been to advise shielding people to continue over the winter and support them with that - and similarly advise any over 60 year olds who are obese. It’s madness to say that it’s “safe” for them to go out and about as normal - of course it isn’t. And as for the general public, the government and NHS should be helping people to manage their own risk - if they are very overweight then help them to lose it, help all people to become healthier, so that their risk is lower. This lockdown is not making the public healthier neither physically nor mentally. It’s destroying the economy. It may well cause other damage to society - possibly civil unrest.

[Ethelfleda]

I’m sorry you feel this way and I feel your pain

[Holyrivolli]

[quote Wavescrashingonthebeach]@VioletCharlotte

Agreed. Saying "Im happy to bunker down" screams of privilege.[/quote]
Doesn’t it just. And dressed up with concern for others when really they don’t give a shit about the vast vast majority of people who won’t be adversely affected by the virus but will suffer hugely if we stop the economy again.

[SheepandCow]

@Holyrivolli actually Long Covid seems to affect younger people. Unless new evidence has come to light over the last 24 hours. The pensioners I know don't want a lockdown at all. They feel they have less time left to live life but accept the need for restrictions for the sake of younger people. However, like me, they'd prefer the Australian and New Zealand approach.

@Derbygerbil
I think we'll have to agree to disagree (your post did make sense btw, even if I don't agree). I know people from Melbourne, and the situation in Victoria is nothing like here. It's a temporary lockdown and it's working. Slowly but surely. Cases are getting under control, and I'm confident their Christmas will be much more normal than ours. Well find out in December which of us is right. There's a minority who don't like it but the vast majority of all Australians support the Aus approach. Opinion polls consistently show that.

[MarshaBradyo]

@ReeseWitherfork

Another question about NZ: how did they lock down so hard? I’m confused who was working in the food industry and how people were going food shopping, the pharmaceutical industry, the utility companies, WiFi and TV companies, the petrochemical industry. I don’t think the U.K. did it half assed, I think we locked down realistically. But maybe I’m missing something. I must admit I’ve not been overly engaged in listening to conversations about what could/should have been so I have probably missed a lot.

Reese not totally sure but the big difference was timing and contact tracing. Very low cases plus early lock down meant the cases could be chased. A week later and it probably would have been too hard.

[MarshaBradyo]

The other thing with NZ if there’s a vaccine then fine. But if not then they have to reassess but will be in a pretty good position economically having avoided a lot of what we’ve funded so far.

[SheepandCow]

Yes their economy will do much better than ours. Failing to contain the spread causes economic devastation.

I haven't heard much recently about Germany. Does anyone know the situation there? I think they had a couple of small outbreaks when they first reopened (and took action). I'm assuming they got everything under control?

[Userzzz]

@Holyrivolli agree with you wholeheartedly.

[toolatetooearly]

or option 3, something in the middle. Oh, like we are doing.

[shinynewapple2020]

Well I'm hoping to continue to live a life somewhere in between these two extremes .

Our day to day lives are pretty low risk anyway with WFH, shopping deliveries and only a few close family members and friends we are meeting in person so hopefully we will be able to continue with the odd day out or meal in a restaurant.

Probably we are lucky that we are at a stage of life (mid 50s) where we aren't as badly affected by the restrictions as others are .

Sadly I am accepting it may be a long while before I can see my mum in anywhere near a normal environment again (she lives in a care home, protocols around visits were difficult due to her dementia and the home is now closed to visitors again )

.

[Stinkyguineapig]

Option 2 for me, it’s only a year and there will be a vaccine by end of next year. I’m happy to bunker down to avoid mass death

If you cant wfh...what are we meant to live on for "only a year". Furlough is ending next month and the gov cant bail out all jobs.

[shinynewapple2020]

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

Why are people accusing me of Option 2 ?

I am asking a question. !
But of course we are all conditioned by experience.

My Covid son (didn't know it at the time ) almost certainly killed my 75 year old neighbour , by mowing his lawn and having a cup of tea with him after.. thank god he doesn't realise this , as neighbour died 6 weeks later after 5 weeks on a ventilator. (He doesn't live with me and I will never tell him) ..

How can you even think this let alone say it

Your son DID NOT kill your neighbour

I'm so angry that you think like this

[Stinkyguineapig]

Less travel for a temporary period is hardly a bad thing.

...unless you work in the travel industry....or related industry (which is a lot of people)

[JKRowlingIsMyQueen]

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

I don't think there is a 'middle ground' for a virus that's fatal for some.

It's only a 'middle ground' if you are pretty sure to sail through it .

Just look on the threads for people who have had it, survived but are still enduring months of terribly debilitating health.

It boils down to social responsibility.

Are you happy for the potential for you or your child to give it to an elderly or immunosuppressed neighbour?

Jesus Christ, the flu is fatal for some and we still resume life as normal during flu seasons. I'm so sick of you fear mongers. Turn off the BBC, how's that for a choice

[SheepandCow]

@Stinkyguineapig

Less travel for a temporary period is hardly a bad thing.

...unless you work in the travel industry....or related industry (which is a lot of people)

If travel industry bosses had had any foresight at the start, they would've been back up and running as normal by now. They put so much pressure on governments to not (temporarily) restrict borders. It's massively backfired because now they're being affected badly, with so many people reluctant or unable to travel.

[Quartz2208]

But who gets to bunker down then?

We still would have to keep things that we needed opening same as lockdown. Supermarket workers/delivery
workers/health care workers have all been hit hard. In this we are still expecting them to while those of us who can bunker down?

Where is the social responsibility there

[notevenat20]

One choice, two alternatives.... :)

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Lots of illnesses are "fatal to some".
I think we need to focus on the necessary - education included. Cut the crap. The pubs. The holidays.

[Quartz2208]

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

The problem is tourism and hospitiality are essential to the economy

It isnt a coincidence that the current incoming change to the rule of 6 relates to the home where there is no benefit to the economy. There is nothing to balance on the other side as a positive to continue.

We can sit in a pub with more people because the benefit for that happening overrides the risk of the virus in the Government eyes.

[BatSegundo]

I was shielding and would never pick 2. It's not a practical option for anything other than a very short time.

I would hope that we as a society wouldn't pick one, either. If we did, I'm pretty sure that anyone who had the means would 'hunker down'. There's probably enough clinically vulnerable/worried people in public services who would take a year out/retire early/change career for this to be a problem. Not to mention the collapse of the health service. And the economy suffering anyway as people choose to stay home.

Middle way please, until we find a vaccine, can do mass testing or develop better treatments.