It's just an overreaction.

[madcow88]

Now don't get me wrong I followed the rules to the letter and still am doing as I don't want to break the law.

However I think it's all a massive overreaction and I don't want to sit by and allow my children's generation to be destroyed.

Their education is totally fucked, they will not get to have the same social experiences as we did as young people.

Why is everyone happily sitting by and allowing our government to restrict our lives over a virus that kills 0.01% of people. Whilst 1000s of people are dying every day due to the lack of treatment and social interactions.

I really just do not feel comfortable with all the laws on our freedom being changed so dramatically over a virus if truth be told is not as deadly as they would like us to be believed.

Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for those people who lost their lives and for the people who will lose their lives in the future but no more than for the people who die of flu and other viruses each year.

@eufycurious

The excess death figures (which I assume your 60,000 figure is referring to) are not all COVID deaths- these will include the deaths caused by lockdown such as cancer patients whose treatment was stopped and suicides.

Even the 40,000 deaths after a positive test were not all caused by COVID- many of these deaths occurred in people over the age of 80 who would have had lots of health conditions.

There is absolutely no evidence that Neil Ferguson’s prediction of 600,000 deaths was accurate- Sweden’s figures would suggest it was vastly exaggerated.

only 307 people under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions have died from COVID.

Yeah let's lock everything down and ruin the lives of young people

If we could see an exit strategy it wouldn’t seem so demoralising. We can’t just ‘lockdown’ every time we ‘open up’.

Pleased to see the ButSwedens have arrived.
I was worried I'd have to do a call out.
There are many many threads with clever people (including epidemiologists and virologists) pointing out the inherent elephant in the room flaws with ButSwedening.
The first being they aren't doing very well.

"only 307 people under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions have died from COVID"

And no one should give a fuck about you if you are either a)old b) have health conditions?

@Figmentofmyimagination

If we could see an exit strategy it wouldn’t seem so demoralising. We can’t just ‘lockdown’ every time we ‘open up’.

I agree but that simply isn’t realistic. No one can make an iron-clad plan to tackle a virus we simply don’t know enough about. Knowledge takes time to acquire and there is no way around that.

If there was a way to 100% stamp COVID out for good I guarantee most countries in the world would be doing it. As things stand it’s trial and error and we’re no where near far enough along to judge what was successful and what was luck.

@TheSeedsOfADream

Sweden are certainly doing much better than us! And while we’re heading for a second wave, they are getting back to normal, so I expect the picture at the end le the year will be even more glaring.

@walksen

No one is saying that the lives of the elderly don’t matter. But what we do have is a clear picture of exactly who is at risk- this should allow us to protect these individuals rather than destroying the economy and shutting people at home who are at no or very low risk.

@TheSeedsOfADream

Pleased to see the ButSwedens have arrived. I was worried I'd have to do a call out. There are many many threads with clever people (including epidemiologists and virologists) pointing out the inherent elephant in the room flaws with ButSwedening. The first being they aren't doing very well.

You've said "they're not doing very well" without actually giving examples lol.

Sweden is not experiencing the same rise in cases as other European countries.

I'd argue they are doing well. Their population does not have to wear masks, and are able to live as normal. Seems like a success to me...

"No one is saying that the lives of the elderly don’t matter"

Bullshit. Let's add of posters say they should manage their own risk.
And if you recall an over 50's lockdown was discussed earlier this year and leaked to the times. It was dropped shortly afterwards.

@walksen

"only 307 people under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions have died from COVID"

And no one should give a fuck about you if you are either a)old b) have health conditions?

Those at risk are free to isolate themselves.

The rest of society should not have their lives and livelihoods ruined to protect the vulnerable. That's an unrealistic expectation.

"Those at risk are free to isolate themselves"

Didn't take long did it @Ecosse?

OP if the virus kills 0.01% of people then out of the entire of the UK 6,600 people would die. 40,000 people have died, and it has infected around 10%.

Who falls within your criteria of vulnerable and how will they survive financially? What about health vulnerable children @gje943

Still waiting eagerly to hear how the people claiming “the vulnerable are free to isolate themselves, the rest of us need to get on with things” think we would manage with an overwhelmed NHS.

Do you think you’d just rock up with a heart attack or needing cancer treatment or a broken arm and say “well I don’t care if you’re full to capacity at the moment, I am Getting On With Things so provide for me”?

@Ylvamoon

The rest of us who are at tiny risk need to get on with things to make sure we have an economy left to fund the NHS

^This 100% - there needs to be an other way of dealing with covid-19. Because destroying people's livelihood is not a valid solution!

Totally agree with this!

@TheSunIsStillShining

I agree that the maths isn't complicated. More than half of the population is between 15 and 55. At least 5% (probably rather more) of the total population has already been infected. Inevitably more non-volunteers will be infected and recovered in the normal course of things.

If 80% of people in the 15-55 age bracket volunteered, that would more then cover it, particularly given the population's non-homogeneity in terms of the likelihood of being infected. Even if only 50% volunteered, it would make an enormous difference.

It's all about getting the R0 down, remember? We don't need everyone to be immune for a pandemic to burn out.

On people not wanting to volunteer because patient 0 in Italy was 30-something and died... that's missing the point. In war time, people don't say, 'oh no I don't fancy fighting for my king and country thanks very much, I've heard that some people die'. In fact, patient 0 was a probably exposed to a very high viral load, and may have had an undetected condition that would be detected by pre-inoculation screening.

It remains true that the idea isn't without risk. But it wouldn't be compulsory (unlike military conscription). It would require individuals to behave courageously, take risk, and do something rather than sitting at home watching TV and waiting for a a scientist somewhere to make a magic, side-effect-free, perfect, universally adopted vaccine which will restore the world to its pre-covid state no matter how long it takes and how much of the old infrastructure and human capital is lost before that vaccine comes.

@ineedaholidaynow

Who falls within your criteria of vulnerable and how will they survive financially? What about health vulnerable children *@gje943*

That's not for me to decide...I'm sure the government would come up with a way to protect vulnerable people financially. It really doesn't sound like an insurmountable task to me.

Children are just not susceptible to COVID, except those with SERIOUS complications such as leukemia, in which case they'd have to take precautions regardless of whether COVID was around.

@GoldenOmber

Still waiting eagerly to hear how the people claiming “the vulnerable are free to isolate themselves, the rest of us need to get on with things” think we would manage with an overwhelmed NHS.

Do you think you’d just rock up with a heart attack or needing cancer treatment or a broken arm and say “well I don’t care if you’re full to capacity at the moment, I am Getting On With Things so provide for me”?

What an absolute ridiculous thing to say.... no one is saying this! We are giving suggestions on how we deal with this pandemic without having our freedom taken away from us.

Our government has always allowed us to make our own risk assessments to keep ourselves safe from virus's and so far this has worked! Covid 19 is no longer a new virus we know more about it and also know it is not as deadly as we first thought. So my question is why the fuck are we locking down and totally crippling the economy? We have had so many years of austerity and times have been difficult so why are we not looking at places like Sweden and taking on board new ways of dealing with this?

Sweden has come out of this as the winner and still we are not taking heed of the way they have done thing.

Also Chjna played to the whole world that the only way of dealing with this is to lock down.... when actually they didn't lock down properly they kept their economy up and running. Not the rest of the worlds economy has crashed and China is well on its way of ruling the world!! Just think this is relevant and no one ever talks about it.

Re this idea of "the vulnerable/elderly/disabled/BAME just staying at home":
Again, as mentioned numerous times already in this thread and others, you would also need to shield everyone living in the same household as these vulnerable people - this would run into millions of people in total.
This would also mean that those vulnerable people (and their household members) who do key jobs needed by society would not be available for work as they would have to stay at home e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers.
I work with eight other consultants. Already I can think that three (at least) would not be available for their NHS work (one's wife is undergoing cancer treatment, one has a serious autoimmune condition, one is over 60). Not to mention the fact that two others are BAME.
Plus any children of any household where there is a vulnerable adult would not be able to go to school and would also need to be shielding at home.
Surely it is obvious that this is not a viable solution given the sheer numbers involved?

Okay, look, I know you really don't want to believe this because it's inconvenient and scary, but the economy is still going to be fucked if we let the virus go and tell the low-risk people to 'get on with things'. We know this because that is exactly what has happened in countries that have tried that approach.

We also know this because that is how the economy works. Money that you spend becomes someone else's income. If people get too nervous to spend money - maybe they don't want to go out shopping because they're worried about Covid (even if they're low-risk of dying people generally don't want to catch it), maybe they're going to call off their house extension this year because their job's looking a bit ropey and best to hang on to the money - then that has a hit on the economy. It does not matter if you, personally, are happy to trot out to John Lewis and buy a lamp. You, personally, do not keep the economy going - the behaviour of the population as a whole keeps the economy going. And you can't make people spend money they don't feel happy spending.

We know how to come through this with the least damage to our economy, because some countries are managing that okay. And they're also managing to protect the vulnerable okay! It's like magic! Lots of people there are a lot closer to normal life than we are, too. Should we try doing what they're doing? China and South Korea and Taiwan? Should we learn from them instead of telling ourselves fairy stories about how we could magically make the virus not be a problem by repeating "shield the vulnerable" and "get on with things" without putting any actual thought behind how?

Sweden has come out of this as the winner and still we are not taking heed of the way they have done thing.

They have the same level of economic damage as their neighbours and a lot more deaths. How the hell is that 'winning' unless you're actually the virus?

[quote hopsalong]@TheSunIsStillShining

I agree that the maths isn't complicated. More than half of the population is between 15 and 55. At least 5% (probably rather more) of the total population has already been infected. Inevitably more non-volunteers will be infected and recovered in the normal course of things.

If 80% of people in the 15-55 age bracket volunteered, that would more then cover it, particularly given the population's non-homogeneity in terms of the likelihood of being infected. Even if only 50% volunteered, it would make an enormous difference.

It's all about getting the R0 down, remember? We don't need everyone to be immune for a pandemic to burn out.

On people not wanting to volunteer because patient 0 in Italy was 30-something and died... that's missing the point. In war time, people don't say, 'oh no I don't fancy fighting for my king and country thanks very much, I've heard that some people die'. In fact, patient 0 was a probably exposed to a very high viral load, and may have had an undetected condition that would be detected by pre-inoculation screening.

It remains true that the idea isn't without risk. But it wouldn't be compulsory (unlike military conscription). It would require individuals to behave courageously, take risk, and do something rather than sitting at home watching TV and waiting for a a scientist somewhere to make a magic, side-effect-free, perfect, universally adopted vaccine which will restore the world to its pre-covid state no matter how long it takes and how much of the old infrastructure and human capital is lost before that vaccine comes.

[/quote]
Thank you for your comment. I totally agree with you and it is a very good alternative to what the government are proposing. I also believe more people would die from shocked and lack of treatment than would die if like you suggest the healthy members of the population volunteer to be infected with the virus.

I'm vulnerable but I'd be in.

So my question is why the fuck are we locking down and totally crippling the economy?

Because this virus, unlike most viruses that are floating around at the moment, has the potential to infect most of the population, because it's a brand new virus we have no immunity to and also it's very infectious.

Come on you KNOW this. Surely you know this. It's been months and months now.

@GoldenOmber

Still waiting eagerly to hear how the people claiming “the vulnerable are free to isolate themselves, the rest of us need to get on with things” think we would manage with an overwhelmed NHS.

Do you think you’d just rock up with a heart attack or needing cancer treatment or a broken arm and say “well I don’t care if you’re full to capacity at the moment, I am Getting On With Things so provide for me”?

You don't seem too bright....let me explain.

Isolating vulnerable people prevents them from becoming infected. This means fewer hospitalizations., therefore NHS does not get overwhelmed.

Genius, right?!

Isolating vulnerable people prevents them from becoming infected. This means fewer hospitalizations., therefore NHS does not get overwhelmed.

It means fewer hospitalisations, not no hospitalisations. NHS would still get overwhelmed, even if only 1% of the population needed hospital treatment for Covid.

And that's if you could 'isolate the vulnerable', which means somehow walling off say a quarter of the population from everybody else. How would that work? Who does their jobs? Who carries out their childcare and other caring responsibilities? Who cares for them when they need care or medical attention? Who provides services to them? Where do they live, all the ones who aren't living alone at present?

There's a reason no government has managed to do this yet, and the reason isn't that they haven't come to Mumsnet to ask for ideas.