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.

@Shooglywheel

I also think we need to carry on with life now and go with herd immunity.

Could you tell me which countries have so far done this for Covid 19 (without having any restrictions at all) and what the results have been?

How can we go with herd immunity when they think only 8% of the population have antibodies?

@ineedaholidaynow

How can we go with herd immunity when they think only 8% of the population have antibodies?

Please, do not let little things like scientific facts get in the way

@ineedaholidaynow

How can we go with herd immunity when they think only 8% of the population have antibodies?

It'll be fine! We will lock all the pesky old and vulnerable people away, then only the young and fit will get the virus. And they won't pass it on to the old and vulnerable. And there won't be any effect on the economy.

The other issue is antibody immunity wanes over time.

Treatment and vaccine pretty damn important

But if we wait and it’s waiting in vain, just bear in mind you & your children will be paying for the privilege forever.

So, the clock is most definitely ticking on a vaccine.

I base my pessimism on the situation as it is.

Yet you remain remarkably uninformed, while tut-tutting and mansplaining away to us all, as if you are the font of all reason! Too funny. Time to pop on the lycra and go for another bike ride.

@cbt944

So just more piss & wind from you then without answering the point?

As for it being ‘too funny’ I’m pretty sure those suffering financially at the moment with the prospect of furlough ending pretty soon totally agree with that smug attitude of yours.

Or maybe, they don’t.

So just more piss & wind from you then without answering the point?

Well, what is your point??

There are 9 vaccines around the world currently in phase three trials, and others at different stages. There will be a vaccine, and several alternative vaccines, by roughly mid 2021, if not earlier.

You say you are basing your pessimism on 'what is'... You say there's never been a vaccine for Sars or Mers, so there never will be one... But I see no reason for pessimism. Perhaps you need to revise your sense of 'what is'.

I dont need to revise my point.

As I said, as it stands, the scientists have it all to prove.

And even if and it is IF they produce a viable, effective vaccine, they then have to wheel it out to millions upon millions of us.

That all takes TIME. Meanwhile, people’s livelihoods are going down the toilet.

Cornetto mentioned next Spring. I’d say if there is no progress one year after this thing hit, her prophecy of civil unrest etc with furlough stopping (as it will have to, we cannot afford these prop up measures indefinitely) becomes ever more likely.

So yes. The clock is ticking.

Righteo, then.

Ok. Hope you had a nice bike ride

@Delatron

I don’t care if I’m a ‘butSweden’ person.

I’ve watched and admired their strategy and I’m routing for them. Because no country knows how to deal with this. No we couldn’t have done the same as them and I get that. But we might be able to take some learning from them about the virus.

The biggest mistake they made was not to protect care homes. They’ve admitted that

Sweden did much worse than 'not protect their elderly' . They actively killed them as far as I am concerned www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52704836 Then again I suppose that is fine after all they have just 'go on with it' and 'lived with it '. Many of their middle aged/elderly have not lived with it, they have died with it.

The Swedish attitude to their elderly is absoutely disgusting. It is not much better in this country but at least we pretend to set up palliative care pathways and help the elderly die in a more humane.

Quotes from the article

""They told us that we shouldn't send anyone to the hospital, even if they may be 65 and have many years to live. We were told not to send them in," says Latifa Löfvenberg, a nurse who worked in several care homes around Gävle, north of Stockholm, at the beginning of the pandemic.
"Some can have a lot of years left to live with loved ones, but they don't have the chance... because they never make it to the hospital," she says. "They suffocate to death. And it's a lot of panic and it's very hard to just stand by and watch."

"A paramedic working in Stockholm, who wanted to remain anonymous, told the BBC she had not had a single call-out to an elderly care home connected to Covid-19, despite putting in overtime during the crisis"

"Mikael Fjällid, a Swedish private consultant in anaesthetics and intensive care, says he believes "a lot of lives" could have been saved if more patients had been able to access hospital treatment, or if care home workers were given increased responsibilities to administer oxygen themselves, instead of waiting for specialist Covid-19 response teams or paramedics.*

I certainly DO NOT admire the Swedish model for dealing with Cvvid and I think history will judge them pretty harshly. Their economy is not doing that well either when compared to other Scandinavian countries.

As for the economy vs health and 'just living with it' (whatever the fuck that means - aren't we living with it now?), It is clear that the countreies that did best economically are those where the deaths are the lowest. We are doing do badly economically not because of lockdown but because we allowed so many people to die

ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy
Quote " But among countries with available GDP data, we do not see any evidence of a trade-off between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. Rather the relationship we see between the health and economic impacts of the pandemic goes in the opposite direction. As well as saving lives, countries controlling the outbreak effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too".

If the infection, hospitalisation and death numbers start ticking up people will begin to feel less enthusiastic about going out to spend money as recreation (the principle on which our economy is based).

Fiona see's an ambulance in her street for the third day running and going for coffee at the garden centre suddenly doesn't feel so appealing.
Mike hears about a friend from the gym who is in hospital with covid, and suddenly the idea of a night out in a busy pub just loses it's appeal.

We cannot just wish this away, if the numbers increase substantially enough people will stop spending money to have the same effect on the economy overall. It is not a binary choice between restrictions and normality.

@CrunchyNutNC

If the infection, hospitalisation and death numbers start ticking up people will begin to feel less enthusiastic about going out to spend money as recreation (the principle on which our economy is based).

Fiona see's an ambulance in her street for the third day running and going for coffee at the garden centre suddenly doesn't feel so appealing.
Mike hears about a friend from the gym who is in hospital with covid, and suddenly the idea of a night out in a busy pub just loses it's appeal.

We cannot just wish this away, if the numbers increase substantially enough people will stop spending money to have the same effect on the economy overall. It is not a binary choice between restrictions and normality.

I is pretty awful really that it is going to take this for the 'we have to live with it now' crowd to under

My niece lived through April May in the worst hit part of Italy and she called me in tears a couple of times at the number of ambulances she heard going past over the worst two weeks. She knows lot of people who have died (She worked in a bank throughout except for 4 weeks when she was ill with covid herself - confirmed with a recent antbody test).

I really would not wish that on anybody but it seems that until it actually happens to people, they just think it is all an 'overreaction'

Yes bumblingbovine and what they don't realise is that even if they could see every person in their street carted off without worrying them, unless the majority are as stone-hearted then nothing will feel normal.

@madcow88

I suggest we all get on with our lives as we did pre-lockdown. we should also be given the freedom to chose to keep ourselves safe in the same way we do with flu and other viruses.

We should get the NHS up and running for all treatments and appointments to run as they did pre-Covid.

Vulnerable people should also be given the choice to isolate if they wish and If not should be able to go ahead with their lives as they did pre-lockdown, looking after themselves as they did before to prevent them catching the flu or other viruses.

I think it's logical to do that! We live in the 2020 we should be five the freedom, choice and responsibility to live our live our life's as we choose.

I say all of this as a woman who is extremely vulnerable and I also have an extremely vulnerable child.

There are a number of problems with this approach:

• All major (and some minor) surgeries/operations have the potential to lead to an intensive care admission. If all the intensive care beds are taken up with Covid cases then that means that major operations.

• Lots of doctors will be called in to deal with Covid and not allowed to stay within their specialty- meaning routine appointments and planned hospital admissions will be suspended

• People with cancer will be much more vulnerable if undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy or recovering from operations- infections are dangerous at the best of times- Covid could mean death.

• Lots of younger people (so Mums and Dads of young children from the generation you mention!) have ended up with lasting damage from Covid. Lots of kids have lost their grandparents.

• Exerting personal freedom in a way that knowingly leads to the deaths of innocent people is pretty horrible.

** sorry that major operations/surgeries are cancelled.

@bumblingbovine49, that's just awful. (Sweden) but will undoubtedly have more than one on this thread wetting their pants with excitement it could happen in the UK too.

America is reporting around 200,000 deaths, the figures get worse by the day. We are not Sweden, where they voluntarily change their behaviour - we are far more like America with their Covid deniers, their mask refusers and their incompetent lying leader.

Sweden has more economic damage and many more deaths than its neighbours, countries with similar diets and similar risk factors.

Economic damage is caused by not protecting your population. We've tried keeping the vulnerable protected but when infection rates get high that no longer works. Unless you allow people to die without medical care, as in Sweden, those with Covid will occupy beds that would otherwise be treating the backlog from the first wave.

Every butSeweden and every person who ignores the risk they create to others prevents non-Covid health care being available.

The main issue that stops it being an overreaction is health care provision. It’s not just to treat Covid but everything else that gets knocked back if the numbers spiral quickly.

We won’t know who has more deaths until this is over. Whilst we are not Sweden and can’t emulate them they are playing the long game. They don’t know if it will be successful. It’s too early to say.

Plus we can learn about the virus from Sweden’s approach. Just as we can from those countries who had a very strict lockdown then saw cases rise very quickly afterwards. Nobody has the right strategy now, we are all learning.

No one in Sweden died without medical care @alreadytaken. The big issue (as here) was care homes and failing to protect them.

Just for comparison though, Sweden have far fewer deaths on a per capita basis than Scotland, for example.

Did people die in Sweden without medical care? I don’t think they did but then that is because they have a fantastic health care system. Unfortunately we don’t.

What we can learn from Sweden is that 50% of deaths were in care homes. If they had managed to protect care homes it would be a different story. And for us too. Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake twice.

lying again Ecosse

"Some can have a lot of years left to live with loved ones, but they don't have the chance... because they never make it to the hospital," she says. "They suffocate to death. And it's a lot of panic and it's very hard to just stand by and watch."

Apparently you dont consider anyone in a car home "people" - because they did die in Sweden without health care.

the ButSweden people want that here.

We are not Sweden - But Brazil with its mass graves, ButAmerica with it's 200,000 and rising dead. That's what you want to see.

What we can learn from Sweden is that 50% of deaths were in care homes. If they had managed to protect care homes it would be a different story. And for us too. Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake twice.

How do we protect care homes? Anyone? Anyone?