To those who just want to carry on as normal

[cpatty]

I've name changed for this, as I am sure this won't make me a popular person around here but hear me out and excuse that I really do not have a way with words

To all those who want the vunerable/elderly to stay at home for god knows how long so they can just carry on as normal and not follow social distancing etc and take the risk, would you forgo the right to hospital treatment if you became unwell with covid as a direct result of being irresponsible?

The vunerable people who are being told constantly to just stay at home, will more than likely require hospital treatment over the winter for non covid related issues as a lot of them do regularly. Hospitals full to the neck of covid patients really isn't going to be of any help to these people at all !
We have a vunerable family member, regular hospital attendances and it gets worse in the hospitals year on year. Sat for hours waiting to be seen despite being extremely unwell (and yes that does happen, its not just people who really don't need to be there sitting for hours on end) sometimes days on a trolley or a chair waiting on a bed becoming available and this was before covid !

Personally i'm not too worried about covid in terms of contracting it, because we have been staying in since March so the risks of contracting it are low for us however the worry is that far too many people are carrying on as normal and this will most certainly lead to a lot of them requiring treatment in hospital for Covid and leads me to worry hugely about the access to medical treatment this winter.
And really why should that vunerable person who has taken care of their health as best as they possibly could and followed guidance to avoid getting covid to protect the NHS, why should that person have to suffer because so many other people choose to be irresponsble thinking they are invincible, it won't happen to them, but then they do end up really ill and requiring hospital treatment. This will lead to an overwhelmed NHS !

This folks is why even if you aren't vunerable. Everyone must do everything that they can to prevent it getting to that stage !

I’m not carrying on as usual, but I am most definitely not staying at home all day everyday.

We are following the guidelines which allow us to... go to work, send kids to nursery, go out for lunch, go to the shops, go to zoo, playground, forest walk, beach, Holiday home etc etc

So yes if I get ill I would like hospital treatment, as I’ve paid my NI for years and years and I am following the current advice.

What many are not realising is that the economy and health are intrinsically linked. There will be no economy until the virus is surpressed or there’s therapeutics/vaccination. Those proposing we carry on as normal as much as possible have a rude awakening over the next 5-10 years. Our economy (even now) is screwed. The medium term implications of this are enormous.

The only way forward for damage limitation is to reduce cases (yes unfortunately through lockdown) then get a proper track and trace working.

Yes telling a huge proportion of society to hide away is morally abhorrent and for those boldly suggesting this thinking they’re somehow safe from the effects of Covid 1:3 in icu are under 50.

There’s so much ignorance about it’s frightening.

History will look back at this Pandemic and it’ll be learnt about for centuries to come. Yet instead of many realising they’re living through a major historical event they ignorantly think we can blindly get back to normal. In 1918 when most were illiterate and without the internet that may have been understandable but now to be in such denial and ignorance???? Mind boggles!!

would you forgo the right to hospital treatment if you became unwell with covid as a direct result of being irresponsible?

Only if they stop treating smokers with lung cancer, alcoholics with liver disease, obese people with type 2 diabetes. Direct results of irresponsible behaviour.

Lets not bother to treat people with flu who didn't get the jab this year - or who declined any other vaccine and then became ill.

Oh and people who are injured in RTAs as they shouldnt have been so irresponsible driving a car when they know theres a risk of injury. Ditto for people falling off bikes, drowning, sports or DIY related injuries, all could be avoided if we just stayed indoors and didnt move.

@KitKatastrophe

would you forgo the right to hospital treatment if you became unwell with covid as a direct result of being irresponsible?

Only if they stop treating smokers with lung cancer, alcoholics with liver disease, obese people with type 2 diabetes. Direct results of irresponsible behaviour.

Lets not bother to treat people with flu who didn't get the jab this year - or who declined any other vaccine and then became ill.

Oh and people who are injured in RTAs as they shouldnt have been so irresponsible driving a car when they know theres a risk of injury. Ditto for people falling off bikes, drowning, sports or DIY related injuries, all could be avoided if we just stayed indoors and didnt move.

spot on 👌

Yes I would take the risk and say that I will forego treatment in the unlikely event that I I contract Covid19 and need hospitalisation. Now can I shop without a mask, can my son go back to drama club, can I see my family and resume playdates, can I take my children swimming without booking in advance, can we get dental health checks and can I go to the doctor's easily, can I book a break for half term and stop worrying about setting work for my lessons online as well as in person, can I have a proper lunchbreak at work, can I take the kids on the train?????
I am fit and healthy and under 40 and I think it's a risk worth taking.

People take calculated risks with their health on a daily basis in order to improve the quality and enjoyment of their lives. I know people hate the flu analogy, but there are lots of contagious diseases and viruses that routinely kill people and we don't lock ourselves away to hide from them. There is always a balance to be had between avoiding illness and people actually getting on with living their lives.

Being vulnerable to Covid is not the only type off vulnerability that matters. Some people do not have robust enough mental health to cope with the restrictions imposed. Some vulnerable people will be denied lifesaving treatment and procedures as a direct result of the measures that have been taken. With a weakened economy the NHS and other vital services risk being even more unfunded which will undoubtedly cost many lives. At risk children face additional hardship that could have lifelong adverse consequences. I don't know why we have to pretend that the drastic measures we take to limit the spread of covid has no victims or that the consequences of these actions aren't extremely serious and will ultimately lead to life loss too or serious detriment to quality of life for some. The fight to get back to normal isn't all about people's frivolous desires to live their absolute best life and it's disingenuous to present it as such.

More people are going die from untreated illnesses, poverty and suicide than COVID and if we don’t get back to some kind of normal and boost the economy it’ll get worse.

Besides, are you talking about rule breakers? Or people living their lives as normally as possible while adhering to the guidelines? Because I’m the latter, I’m off to a shopping centre this afternoon, and meeting (3) friends for dinner in a restaurant tonight. Aside from having to wear a mask while shopping that’s pretty normal for me, and perfectly legal and acceptable.

I don't think there are many households who are able,to 'stay at home since March' like you are doing.

We are both back to work full time and our children are both back at school.

The idea of rationing healthcare on a sliding scale of responsibility is dangerous. It seems part of contemporary thinking that we can control everything: chance, fate, luck, the will of god are all abandoned. We are in control therefore we are responsible.

This pandemic is proving the idea to be a fallacy.

@Hotcuppatea could you not find a more polite way to reply?

I appreciate this is an emotive topic, but it is not possible to be civil?

I believe that the numbers have simply gone up because of the amount of testing people are having done. I find it shocking (and I have done throughout) that children are missing school, people are being denied vital cancer treatment and other people are losing their jobs for a disease which for the vast majority of people is not deadly. How much longer are we going to have to live in this weird state of limbo, not being able to plan ahead or have anything to look forward to? I realise this is not all about me and my family, however DS1 is in Y11. He finally went back to school 2 weeks ago after being off since March (they had no face to face provision at all) and has just been told their prom for next August has been cancelled. The entire year group are so disappointed. Yes I realise it’s nothing compared to someone dying however in their world it’s a huge thing. They are making sacrifice after sacrifice yet they can’t even have something to look forward to a nearly a year away. If we are in the same position this time next year then there really is no hope for any of us tbh.

People naturally want to get back to normal and the virus has a devastating impact across all of our society

But the virus is here and uncontrolled the damage to our society would be immense.economic, NHS, all would suffer damage, and even the Tory economists think that would be worse than trying to control the virus,

Therefore some level of control is needed

One way to control it is by coming together and all doing a bit. Keeping our distance, minimising social contact. No gigs. No Christmas fairs. It really sucks but we can work to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table until better solutions are available

The other way to control it is to split society apart into the vulnerable and not vulnerable. Effectively imprison the vulnerable so the others can go back to a normal of sorts.

For that to work the vulnerable would not be allowed medical appointments or outside , food would be delivered , because without such stringent controls a rampant virus would get them

What level of risk do you think is ok ? A 1 in 100 chance of dying , 1 in 500, 1 in 1000?

Even at 1 in 100 you would be locking up a good few million people including many doctors, teachers & Handy childcaring grandparents. You would be withdrawing their spending power from the high street. If we include the people they normally live with ( which you must because you cannot remove all physical contact forever from humans, treating an animal like that would get you in jail) . you could be talking about 10:or 20 million people. There will be a lot of working people wrapped up in that

Excluding the pensioners, those people will need their mortgage or rent and bills by the government, all will need food parcels delivered weekly. Millions needing additional mental health support ...because you do realise that even vulnerables get mental health problems don't you?

My husband was sobbing two nights ago, at how, because he is diabetic ( type 1 , middle aged ) he is totally messing up family life. We are all prepared to take more precautions than the rest of the population needs to, which has been hard for us, but if you think that we deserve to be imprisoned because wearing a mask and keeping distance is too hard for you, well I have no sympathy even if your job is on the line ( because clearly you don't care about our jobs and life, so why should I do anyth8ng to look after your job or life? )

Look people did comply with the original lockdown. It didn't work, just managed to suppress the numbers catching it over summer when vitamin D and lack of other winter colds meant there might have been a bit more capacity in the NHS.

This has been going on for 6 months now. I think people know what the score is without another patronising lecture. My DF just celebrated his 87th birthday. I got a takeaway from the carvery he likes, but DM won't let them go out. They've stayed in and protected themselves. But as my DF says, he's 87, he doesn't want to hide away forever particularly if that means not seeing us. A vaccine next year could well be too late for him.

You're scornful about DCs and playdates. It's more than that. My DS14 needs more than the pitiful online offering he got last time. He also needs to interact with his peers. He grew bulky and large in lockdown- now shedding that weight through daily exercise at school. Should I just shrug my shoulders and accept that a likely lifetime of weight problems for my DS and poor exam results that could harm his career prospects is acceptable so other people don't die of coronavirus.

I don't know what the perfect answer is either. But I know it's not a linear equation between how compliant we are and how soon life returns to normal.

Thing is, it pretty much IS a direct correlation between how much we move about and come into contact with others and how soon life returns to normal.

The second wave wasn't a thing that was coming towards us, that we could choose the time of. The second wave IS us. We contain the virus. If we stay still, it dwindles. When we mix with other people, it grows. It doesn't exist as a separate entity outside of us and our actions determine its viability. So the more we "return to normal", the more it thrives, the more we hide away, the more we drive it into retreat. It's a morbid dance.

@rookiemere

Look people did comply with the original lockdown. It didn't work, just managed to suppress the numbers catching it over summer when vitamin D and lack of other winter colds meant there might have been a bit more capacity in the NHS.

This has been going on for 6 months now. I think people know what the score is without another patronising lecture. My DF just celebrated his 87th birthday. I got a takeaway from the carvery he likes, but DM won't let them go out. They've stayed in and protected themselves. But as my DF says, he's 87, he doesn't want to hide away forever particularly if that means not seeing us. A vaccine next year could well be too late for him.

You're scornful about DCs and playdates. It's more than that. My DS14 needs more than the pitiful online offering he got last time. He also needs to interact with his peers. He grew bulky and large in lockdown- now shedding that weight through daily exercise at school. Should I just shrug my shoulders and accept that a likely lifetime of weight problems for my DS and poor exam results that could harm his career prospects is acceptable so other people don't die of coronavirus.

I don't know what the perfect answer is either. But I know it's not a linear equation between how compliant we are and how soon life returns to normal.

This! A million times over.

Totally agree @rookiemere

Continued lockdowns are not realistic and don’t solve anything, just delay it.

@Ecosse

I actually don’t think anyone is advocating going ‘back to normal’. Clearly we will have to have measures like social distancing and masks in place for the foreseeable future. And premises like nightclubs cannot reopen.

Lots of people on MN are advocating this. Their arguments are “why do people only care about Covid! What about cancer treatment, the economy, mental health!.... “ without seeing that if we treated Covid just like the flu, all those things would be far worse! I agree with you that a second lockdown needs to be avoided, and we need to do whatever we can to ensure the economy remains open and children remain at school, but the more Covid minimisers are successful in promoting their cause, the more likely a second lockdown would be. They don’t seem to see that they are advocating a path to disaster.

Delay until we can solve it seems like a great plan to me

Acting like New Zealand would have been a better plan, but no point crying over that

Look people did comply with the original lockdown. It didn't work....

But it did work in so far as it squashed infections rates massively. It was never meant to eradicate it. Whether we could have done it better is another question.

The second wave wasn't a thing that was coming towards us, that we could choose the time of. The second wave IS us. We contain the virus. If we stay still, it dwindles. When we mix with other people, it grows. It doesn't exist as a separate entity outside of us and our actions determine its viability. So the more we "return to normal", the more it thrives, the more we hide away, the more we drive it into retreat. It's a morbid dance.

Well put.

@Nellodee

Thing is, it pretty much IS a direct correlation between how much we move about and come into contact with others and how soon life returns to normal.

The second wave wasn't a thing that was coming towards us, that we could choose the time of. The second wave IS us. We contain the virus. If we stay still, it dwindles. When we mix with other people, it grows. It doesn't exist as a separate entity outside of us and our actions determine its viability. So the more we "return to normal", the more it thrives, the more we hide away, the more we drive it into retreat. It's a morbid dance.

Well essentially we did choose the time of the second wave. We knew that when things reopened and people started moving about again (within the ‘rules), cases would rise. Over the summer a huge amount of things were still closed or restricted, ergo low case numbers. Then August/September hit, and the government decided in all its wisdom to encourage people back into restaurants, back into offices (therefore back on public transport) and back to schools. Result is a huge increase in cases. The government basically have controlled the timing of that.

** The entire OP is clearly shortsighted and selfish. But this struck me:

The vunerable people who are being told constantly to just stay at home, will more than likely require hospital treatment over the winter for non covid related issues as a lot of them do regularly. Hospitals full to the neck of covid patients really isn't going to be of any help to these people at all !

OP, have you not noticed that most hospital treatment was stopped? Deaths from preventable causes are up, people are not seeking medical care when it's needed or being denied it because of Covid.

It's not unreasonable to want life to go on, we can't all stay indoors indefinitely. The fallout is already huge, it would be catastrophic and deaths from the affects of lockdowns will outweigh Covid deaths before long.

If you want to stay in then by all means do so, but don't demand everyone else does when it's perfectly acceptable to carry on living with a few sensible precautions.

@Bimbleboo should read THAT nhs thread started recently.

Can you link me to it please? I can't find it and the search tool isn't being much help.

@goldenslumbers1 are you new to Mumsnet? Do you try to police people's speech in real life or just online? Also, fuck off.

@SoUtterlyGroundDown I think my issue is with the notion of waves. Yes, we chose our actions and they had an effect, but there was not an option to "get the wave over and done with". If we had released lock down earlier, yes, we would have got this uptick earlier, but that doesn't mean that the "wave" would have passed us by this point.

If we had relaxed earlier and still relaxed now, there is every possibility that rather than shifting the wave earlier in the year, we would instead just have had a longer period of growth.

People speak of the graph of a viruses growth as an exponential curve. Really, it's a more complicated curve, it's a decaying exponential curve, where as more people get infected, the exponent decreases, until as the entire viable population has been infected, the curve flattens. Unfortunately, the size of our population means that slowing would take quite long time to come into effect and the amount of people affected would have been massive. I certainly don't think it was ever possible to get Covid over and done with by the winter in any acceptable manner.