Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

To those who just want to carry on as normal

207 replies

cpatty · 18/09/2020 22:07

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 !

OP posts:
eeeyoresmiles · 20/09/2020 03:53

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.

Well you already accept him having worse exam results and career prospects than he would otherwise so that other people don't die of cancer, diabetes or sepsis, don't you? After all, we could decide to stop all screenings, prevention and treatment for those tomorrow and just spend the money on education instead.

yeOldeTrout · 20/09/2020 07:47

Other countries don't need their own nurses to deal with their own covid patients? I guess not

rookiemere · 20/09/2020 08:03

@eeeyoresmiles that's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

I'm not asking for the moon on a stick, all I want is for my DS to get a reasonable education- if it has to be a mixture of online and face to face I can even live with that provided it is taught rather than just handed out - and for him to have an opportunity to play sport outside with his friends.

Before things were in balance. I did not complain for the first two months of lockdown as we did not know much about the virus and it's demographics. I was happy for him to make a sacrifice to what seemed like a greater cause at the time for a couple of months, now I can see this stretching for another 6-12 months and we can see demographics of who is being impacted I'm no longer signing up to screw up my DCs future willingly.

I'm simply saying that if we sacrifice everything else at the alter of coronavirus, we should be aware of the unintended consequences and add them to the scales when deciding what course of action would be appropriate.

Oliversmumsarmy · 20/09/2020 13:33

From what I have read, I think this virus is going to affect a certain number of people whether that is through lockdowns and opening ups and then going into lockdown again etc
Or just opening everything up and getting on with things.

We are not going to get away from that number of infections and all the lockdowns are doing is trying to OTOH is to not have the NHS flooded with sick people so giving those that are sick a better chance of recovery.

But in doing multiple lockdowns we are just extending the time the disease is with us for and the financial and mental impact to people and the impact on other NHS departments could be almost as bad as the disease

I believe in wearing masks and SD at all times. Not just in shops and on transport

At least if someone with the virus does cough in your face from 2m away and you are wearing a mask then the viral load will be so much less and giving you a much better chance of going through the subsequent illness with fewer problems.

But I do believe we should open everything up and start to get back to as normal a life as we can and only lockdown if the number of hospitalisations rise to a certain figure for a week or 10 days then go back to mask wearing normal.

I think the harsher the lockdown the higher the subsequent infection to hospitalisation to death rate there is when things open

midgebabe · 20/09/2020 16:01

The problem is the t8me lag

Currently say 200 admissions a day (?) doubling every week, so in 2 weeks time that 800 admissions a day.

800 every day going in with an average stay of 2 weeks.

How many spare beds do we have ? In context I think we have somewhere in the region of 100,000 to 150,000 beds ( with staff) and it would not surprise me to find that 90% full was typical, so 10,000 beds at most spare so that's close to today needing to clamp down

So I estimate that to keep the hospitals under control, not having to cancel operations, we may actually have to lock down /take stronger action with relatively small numbers of admissions and deaths , because of the 2 week lag in the system

eeeyoresmiles · 20/09/2020 17:19

[quote rookiemere]@eeeyoresmiles that's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

I'm not asking for the moon on a stick, all I want is for my DS to get a reasonable education- if it has to be a mixture of online and face to face I can even live with that provided it is taught rather than just handed out - and for him to have an opportunity to play sport outside with his friends.

Before things were in balance. I did not complain for the first two months of lockdown as we did not know much about the virus and it's demographics. I was happy for him to make a sacrifice to what seemed like a greater cause at the time for a couple of months, now I can see this stretching for another 6-12 months and we can see demographics of who is being impacted I'm no longer signing up to screw up my DCs future willingly.

I'm simply saying that if we sacrifice everything else at the alter of coronavirus, we should be aware of the unintended consequences and add them to the scales when deciding what course of action would be appropriate.

[/quote]
So if I've understood that right, now you know who's most likely to die, you want anti-covid measures to be reduced, compared to when you thought different demographics might be at risk? I can see why the cancer comparison makes no sense to you, because it seems like you're seeing people who are vulnerable to covid as qualitatively different from people who are vulnerable to cancer. Even though the vulnerable group is huge and includes lots of young people, working people, parents of school-aged children, essential workers and so on?

In any case, what I think you're unfortunately overlooking is that you and your ds yourselves will be extremely impacted by covid if it spreads widely. You might not be likely to die of the illness itself, but if we get a massive wave of illness, your life and his education will still be hugely affected.

The emphasis early on on how we were doing what we were doing to protect the vulnerable was a mistake, as I think it's really misled people as to the risks to even non-vulnerable people of letting infection rates rise and the disease spread freely. Life won't go back to any kind of normal if lots of us opt out of trying to go along with restrictions to stop the disease spreading.

We've got to keep walking this tightrope of letting people do as many normal activities as possible while keeping infection rates at a low and manageable level. Everyone who decides they're not going to bother being careful any more or follow any temporary restrictions just makes it more likely we'll fall off that tightrope and end up with more and more hospital admissions, school closures and so on. It won't be as simple as just a few more vulnerable people dying - everyone's life will be affected.

I honestly don't think people are overlooking the other consequences of anti-covid measures the way you think they are. It's just that they're having to balance that out not just against possible deaths, but also against the more general disruption caused by the virus spreading. Even if we write off every covid death and say they don't matter, we'll still have huge problems if the virus spreads widely. Just bear that in mind.

firstimemamma · 20/09/2020 17:26

I couldn't 'stay in since March' as I have a toddler who needs physical and mental stimulation. People have lives to lead and I refuse to just keep him indoors and away from all social interaction for months and months on end. Think what you want of me op but I try to be a good person and I help the nhs in various other ways.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread