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.

Oh no I'm sorry, maybe it's because every single government in the entire world "doesn't seem too bright". Gosh why don't they just listen to you! I'm sure it CAN'T be any more complicated than you think it is, there must be a very simple solution that people are just weirdly unwilling to do....

@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”?

The nhs was never ever overwhelmed! So I don't get your point.

[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]
Ok, let's do the maths together

34m falls between the 15-55 age group.
You're saying 80% of those need to be infected, that is 27.5m
Of all the population that is 41%.

For herd immunity* (BS) the threshold is around 60-80%

But if we take the numbers by your logic: we infect 41% (27.5m) people, and take it on the chin that 2.7m will die (current stat: 10%ish) then what have we gained:

24.75m people infected. That will be 37% of the population.

WHY?????

Getting the R number is not by killing off 2m+ people in the process....

Sidenote:
Maybe people don't want to volunteer as the numbers show that out of the 390k tested and positive cases 41k died (ONS 52k), which is a bit more than 10%....

• there is no record of herd immunity naturally through human history. And the natural immunity length is in question!

So if a single parent is vulnerable so isolates to ensure NHS not overwhelmed what happens to their child? Are they allowed to go to school and risk bringing virus back to mum? Or do they have to find somewhere else to live?

I think it was close to being wasn't it and anyway just because it might not have been last time doesn't mean it won't be this time.

And saying we know more about the virus, do we really know that much? Still conflicting reports about how much children transmit the virus.

the vulnerable are free to isolate themselves

What about all the vulnerable groups that err, WORK?

How old is your Consultant, HoD, Bin Man, Food Delivery Guy, Carer, Teacher?

Bags of them are in their 50s, are BAME, have other conditions? So when they all isolate themselves ( and they would have to) And their associated families?
What happens then?

A HCP was on here earlier pointing out that if all the "vulnerable " in her dept shielded there would be no department.

Genius Idea.

Amazing when posters accuse others of "not being very bright" then come out with an utter load of bollocks that cannot be backed up in any way

I love the fact that this thread has revealed a cohort of people known as the “ButSwedens”, a nice way to name call your way out of actually examining the truth that there is another country who went against the grain and is surviving, nay thriving, lockdown-free without bodies being piled up in carts at the side of the streets in IKEA carts.

‘The nhs was never ever overwhelmed! So I don't get your point.’

Because we locked down and took action to stop it becoming so, you monumental fuckwit 🤦🏼‍♀️

More research needs to be done on Long COVID. Is it just like other long term issues you can get from a virus or more than that and more prevalent

@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.

Your maths is wrong. Currently nearly 0.1 (not 0.01) per cent of the U.K. population have died with Covid. That’s with lockdown measures in place.

@GoldenOmber

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.

That's the point Jesus Christ....1% of the population would not need hospitalisation because THEY'D BE ISOLATED/PROTECTED. Healthy people with no underlying conditions VERY RARELY need to be hospitalised. You really overestimate the potency of this virus...seriously do some research.

Over 75% of the deaths are in the 75+ age group. If we concentrate efforts to protect those people, we can deal with the virus without impacting so severely on the lives of everybody else.

Your attitude seems to be that government is all-knowing and infallible therefore their strategy MUST be the the best. Very dangerous thinking and intellectually lazy.

I hate to keep coming back to Sweden but this was exactly their strategy and it seems to have worked.

therefore NHS does not get overwhelmed

It will be short staffed if

• all those with underlying health conditions and their family have to shield.

• lots of NHS staff are off sick at the same time

You seem to forget that if we let the virus rip though the population, the non-vulnerable will still catch the virus and many will need to take time off work. That will impact not only on the NHS but every other organisation that provides an essential service.

@sunglassesonthetable

the vulnerable are free to isolate themselves

What about all the vulnerable groups that err, WORK?

How old is your Consultant, HoD, Bin Man, Food Delivery Guy, Carer, Teacher?

Bags of them are in their 50s, are BAME, have other conditions? So when they all isolate themselves ( and they would have to) And their associated families?
What happens then?

A HCP was on here earlier pointing out that if all the "vulnerable " in her dept shielded there would be no department.

Genius Idea.

Being BAME and in your 50's doesn't make one vulnerable.

75% of deaths are in the over-75 age group.

Try again...

Schools will struggle with lack of teachers if the vulnerable have to shield

Totally agree!
More people are dying from other illnesses because they can't get the treatment they need...
We follow the law but think it's Ridiculous...it's far too extreme for the small numbers they are talking about... be like Sweden...

That's the point Jesus Christ....1% of the population would not need hospitalisation because THEY'D BE ISOLATED/PROTECTED. Healthy people with no underlying conditions VERY RARELY need to be hospitalised.

Yeah, rarely, maybe about 1% of the time? So if the whole population gets Covid at the same time, that would result in - ta-da! - 1% of the population needing hospitalisation at some point.

Also you still haven't explained how you are going to effectively set up and enforce compulsory isolation for maybe 25% of the population?

@eufycurious

therefore NHS does not get overwhelmed

It will be short staffed if

• all those with underlying health conditions and their family have to shield.

• lots of NHS staff are off sick at the same time

You seem to forget that if we let the virus rip though the population, the non-vulnerable will still catch the virus and many will need to take time off work. That will impact not only on the NHS but every other organisation that provides an essential service.

You have to be very old and/or sick to be susceptible to this virus.

Seriously...being 50 and a little overweight does not make someone vulnerable.

Do some research on how dangerous this virus actually is to most people under 75.

Waste of time arguing with the Covid suppressors.

It’s completely evident this thing is out of the bag now. Too many cases out there, the WHO continually announcing global daily record infections.

It’s herd immunity in slo mo as they cannot afford economic suppression for much longer - like it or lump it.

You have to be very old and/or sick to be susceptible to this virus.

It's not either 'bit of a cold' or 'death'. Plenty of people aren't going to die if they get it, but might still be off work for a week or two. Or even if they're not that ill, are still going to be off work because they work with people they don't want to pass Covid along to.

@Cocklepops You couldnt make this shit up

@gje943
It's actually 74.6% which is not "over 75%". This is how to skew facts into fitting your narrative. From a number perspective the difference is really small, but from what you imply by it.....

The actual numbers (ONS)

Under 1 year 2
1 to 14 years 4
15 to 44 years 570
45 to 64 years 5019
65 to 74 years 7725
TOTAL 13320

That is 13k people who could have lived way longer. That is potentially 13k families that have to deal with the loss of a mother/child/father.
And it's 13k+ people you want to throw under the bus when you say only protect the 75+ OR "vulnerable go fuck yourself and stay home"

Vulnerable people have jobs, kids in school, etc....

Re: Sweden, I thought they weren't doing very well at all in comparison to the other Scandinavian countries with similar demographics/population density/rules etc. Or has this changed now?

I genuinely wonder why we spend so much money on state education if this is the outcome....