We have a right to education, a right to personal liberty, a right to family time, or we did before Covid.

[Treesofwood]

But not any more. So how do we decide when some people's rights (including right to life) mean that others lose their rights. There have always been people who could get very sick and even die if they were to catch anyone of a number of viruses that circulate every year. No one suggested everyone should give up their right to personal liberty to prevent that. There have always been people who are killed on the roads every year. No one suggested that non essential car journeys should be banned to reduce or prevent this. Why are people with cancer's lives seen as less worth saving than those who might catch Covid? Why are people OK with this? How can the government make it illegal for me to see my parents?

@PremierInn

And let's consider the overall deathrate of covid. Perhaps in simple graph form. I wonder if anyone can see a pattern?

Interestingly, the death rate from June to August has been the lowest in years. It's almost like the theory that covid simply hastened the death rate of many of those who are extremely frail by a few months is true. No doubt the fact that the age group by far most likely to succumb to covid is 80+ is pure coincidence as we all know that they might live another forty healthy years ...
Unless of course they are in a care home ...

The 'typical' care home resident is a mid 80s woman with a life expectancy of 12-30 months (pre-covid)

40%+ deaths of covid were in care homes in the UK

I wonder if any of these facts are against the spirit of the talk guidelines?

So you’re ok with taking the final 12-30 months away of tens of thousands of people’s lives.

Is that what you’re saying?

Bluelinings One thing I do know is that life in a care home, with Covid restrictions as they are, leads to an incredibly lonely and frightening experience. People are scared and think the reason that they have no visitors, or twenty minute interaction behind a screen in the garden is due to something they have done.
It is heartbreaking for those who work there and also for those who love them (obviously)

I find it quite shocking, whether you are 80 or 18 all life is valuable. Living in a care home may not be ideal but that’s doesn mean their lives don’t matter.

It’s social conscience, trying to keep other people safe and caring about vulnerable people in society.

Nicedayforawedding Would you save the life of the 80 year old over the 18 year old though? We're you faced with that decision?

Ah - are we moving into the eugenicist cuntery prevalent on so many coronavirus threads?

Ariadne I don't think anyone is suggesting killing people or sterilising them? Fact is different people will die because of the interventions we are putting in place. It maybe true that there will be less them. Or it may not be if you take a longer term view.

@Nicedayforawedding Lots of people don't care about vulnerable in society who will become homeless, commit suicide, lose their jobs because of lockdown. The effects will be felt for years. Decades even.

So you’re ok with taking the final 12-30 months away of tens of thousands of people’s lives.

To save the lives of cancer sufferers of all ages, the save the education and therefore further life prospects of children, the save the lives of younger suicidal people, to save women and children from abusive domestic situations, to save families from homelessness and financial ruin......

Yes

Average life expectancy once you enter a care home 13 months. Average age of covid death victim 82.
These people are at the end of their lives and could get a cold or flu or chest infection and die at any time. They are not worth the sacrifice.

Also we're not talking about killing these people, we're talking about letting nature take its course.

Is it murder when we don't give antibiotics to old people with chest infections so that they die. No it's just letting someone who is at the natural end of their life die.

I don’t get the whole bit about cancer being affected. You CAN always arrange appointments while there is lockdown. In fact lockdown COULD increase availability of appointments compared to no lockdown if you arrange them in the right way.

If there is another lockdown, you could always make an exception for medical appointments.

With no lockdown, hospitals fill up, higher risk to people on chemo. As more wards are required to be Covid wards, it could be harder for chemo patients to get a side room on a non Covid ward. Also, more staff get sick or are off due to waiting for tests.

@Alabamawhirly1

Also we're not talking about killing these people, we're talking about letting nature take its course.

Is it murder when we don't give antibiotics to old people with chest infections so that they die. No it's just letting someone who is at the natural end of their life die.

This is unethical imo.

Covid kills the elderly but also kills people who have thirty, forty years left to live.

Long covid also features in this. Many people will have long term impacts.

Why would we let nature take its course with covid when we wouldn't with ebola or hiv or cancer?

@Treesofwood

Votesforpedro So why have we allowed children to go to school unwell in the past? Two weeks quarantine for flu symptoms could have prevented transmission and saved a life. Ditto chicken pox, or other illnesses that can be dangerous for those with a weakened immune system.

I dont know what school you went to but no child goes to school with flu or chicken pox

The thing that chicken pox has in common with covid is that its contagious before you get the main symptoms

I don’t think nature should take its course. But we can’t only focus on damage from Covid.

Needs to be balanced with economic and general health which are just as important. Possibly more.

There’s no point in Angela Raynor for example talking about no deaths from Covid on R4 this morning.

The government has to balance the equation with economics and Covid

Your right to liberty is not and never has been unconstrained, especially where your choices impact other people.

think seat belts, anti smoking laws, gun laws,

We should also remember as subjects not citizens, and with no written constitution, we are pretty vulnerable when it comes to 'rights' in the UK!

Repeatswan. We do not ban people from having unprotected sex, or being obese, or cigarettes or alcohol. These actions can be linked to some cancers and being infected with HIV. So they are allowed to occur.

While the govt can do something to mitigate effect on people who lost their jobs, it’s harder to mitigate the medical effects (on the one hand chronic illnesses, immuno-suppressed and on the other mental health conditions).

But mental health problems may manifest from both not locking down (eg PTSD from nhs staff/relatives of Covid patients, mental health of vulnerable isolating for very long periods plus dealing with higher risk of danger) and locking down (eg mental health due to lockdown).

@slipperywhensparticus Considering 75% of cases of flu are asymptomatic and children are infectious prior to spots coming out in chickenpox then I'd say there's a fair chance your children have spread the illness. Even siblings of children with chicken pox are allowed to school until the spots come out and everyone knows it's got a 2 week incubation period, so child is infectious on day 11,12,13.

Why would we let nature take its course with covid when we wouldn't with ebola or hiv or cancer?

Exactly!

@repeatswan Long covid sounds not dissimilar to other conditions, CFS, Fibromyalgia, Lymes disease. No one suggests banning people from walking in the woods to prevent it from happening, for example.

@Treesofwood

Repeatswan. We do not ban people from having unprotected sex, or being obese, or cigarettes or alcohol. These actions can be linked to some cancers and being infected with HIV. So they are allowed to occur.

The differences are obvious with all those activities and who is at risk.

I don't think you're engaged enough with the nature of the problems covid could cause if not checked.

How ever many cigarettes I smoke, it won't lead to exponential growth in cancer rates.

I don’t get the whole bit about cancer being affected. You CAN always arrange appointments while there is lockdown. In fact lockdown COULD increase availability of appointments compared to no lockdown if you arrange them in the right way.

Yes - my cancer stuff continued. Even got phoned to bring forward appointments ! (this was in April)

Appreciate everyone else with cancer may have had their cancer treatment withheld

[quote Treesofwood]@repeatswan Long covid sounds not dissimilar to other conditions, CFS, Fibromyalgia, Lymes disease. No one suggests banning people from walking in the woods to prevent it from happening, for example.[/quote]
Again, maybe you don't understand the numbers of potential long covid cases.

If 1 million people might be debilitated by Lyme disease this year, I suspect the areas where this could be contracted would get shut.

Aridane, lots of people had treatment, surgery, diagnostic delayed or cancelled. And obviously time us if the essence. Some ongoing treatments were able to be moved to the home, so for some it was better.

To throw in my anecdata...I only know one person with cancer thankfully. They have been diagnosed and treated since lockdown started, no delays. I know one person who has previously survived cancer, their monitoring/checkups have continued throughout lockdown. I know one person with very severe mental health problems, they have done better than ever during lockdown (they seemed to flourish as soon as everything stopped and the pressure to leave the house regularly was lifted). I know many others who have said their general mental health improved with the enforced slowed down pace of life, working from home etc.

None of this to say lockdown isn’t hideous for some people, it is and they deserve proper support. But in my experience it is nor causing inevitable delays to cancer treatment or universally damaging mental health.