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.

But people's choices affect others, so everyone just making their own choices isn't actually a viable option. Many who were advised to shield have to be back at work now otherwise they can't afford to pay their bills, and that would be the case going forward if things do go downhill again, they wouldn't actually have a fair choice. Ideally covid would just go away, but even if it's left to spread unchecked, that will also have huge affects on hospitals, the economy and schools etc. I'm furious that the government hasn't actually made sure that the testing system is sufficient and that schools etc haven't been given the support and funding they need to actually make a go of being safer. But they haven't, so here we are.

@CoffeeandCroissant

General emerging global view is that the infection fatality rate is likely to end up at 0.1%.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Not that an overall IFR is particularly useful given the age differentials, but the consensus view is not that it is that low. CDC and WHO both around 0.65%. Large serological studies in UK, Italy, Spain all gave a range of 0.5% to 1%. But as I said overall IFR not that useful as it depends on average age of population and who in that population gets it.

Yes the mortality is thought to be 0.6-1%. However this may come down with improved treatment and also face masks are thought to possibly reduce viral load and subsequently mortality rate. That’s what you would hope would happen in a pandemic though ; a high mortality rate at the start which decreases as the scientific understanding and treatments improve.

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@frozendaisy tell that to all the people losing their jobs and homes. Patronising rubbish.[/quote]
Just trying to deal with the effect on the younger generations as one issue. Oh I am completely aware of the other issues. Possibly not explained well. In that everything needs to be balanced to reduce to hit for as many as possible, so not JUST education, people need money, we all need money. So apologies didn't mean to sweep other issues aside, I just think there can be some disruption in education if it saves more jobs and homes.

oh crap, I muddled my decimal places. Sorry!

So my figure would be for a 1% death rate on a wholly vulnerable population where most people caught it (assuming national population of 66m, which is rounded down from the 2019 estimated population size)

www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

IFR and CFR are not fully established - estimates of IFR range around 0.5-1% (or has that been overtaken?)

Nor is what proportion of the population have already had it, how long immunity lasts, and whether second (and subsequent) infections would be milder

There are many, many scientists who believe that the numbers Ferguson used were wrong. And they are not quacks. For every expert you throw at me I can show you a similarly respected expert who thinks the opposite. However, for some reason our government chose to use the model of a man who has been wrong in every single one of his epidemical predictions to date.

The data is starting to bear it out, I am happy that the reading I am doing shows this, and I read from a wide range of sources. Some of you might find this interesting and some of you won't because all of our views on this have become very entrenched and polarised.

For those who would like to look at where I am getting my information have a read of this:
drmalcolmkendrick.org/category/covid-19/

and also look at Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta and Karol Sakora as a starting point. They are acknowledged experts in their respective fields who don't happen to agree with the current approach to Covid.

And let’s not forget the long term effects for those who didn’t die. That’s probably another percent or two or even higher.

I have started thinking it is to do with history and the fact that the NHS is government run so the people in charge feel like they would have blood on their hands if they do not take drastic measures. It has been a long time since we have fought wars in which hundreds of thousands of young people were killed and basically sent off to die and fight, at the hand of government. So government is no longer used to making those kind of decisions where they have to balance people’s lives against the long term freedom of others. I can see arguments on both sides to be honest so am entirely morally conflicted. On the one hand the elderly and extremely vulnerable need to be protected, on the other hand what is happening to the young disenfranchised is also entirely unfair as they also have a right to an education and social interactions. I do think there is a real risk of scarring the younger generation and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

@kursaalflyer

Bloody hell. It's been 6 months not a generation.

^ This

Why don’t people still understand the reason the virus is killing so few people (and causing long term health problems in others) is because we have restricted the spread.

I suppose you think Y2K was a big fuss over nothing because everything was ok?

I suppose it’s ok that the people it is killing are the most vulnerable in our society and they aren’t worth saving because your children are more important.

If you are such an expert on the virus, go offer yourself up to the government for advice rather than posting yet another thread about how it’s all a big joke.

From not really being sure what to think at the beginning of this year, I have definitely moved towards your opinion, OP.

The way we are at the moment, flip flopping between lockdown versus opening up and in so doing damaging or destroying many people's livelihoods is just not sustainable.

Nor am I any longer prepared to listen to anyone telling me that I cannot visit my elderly and vulnerable parents, who both only made it alive through the first lockdown by the skin of their teeth. If they want and need me I will make my own decision. I will go to them. I am NOT taking the risk again that they could die alone and without saying goodbye.

I will not listen to anyone who tries to preach at me. Not again. I had a terrible lockdown due to family circumstances the first time around and it has irrevocably coloured the way I see the whole thing.

That is my take and my reasons for it.

I mean, your entire OP is based on hyperbole. Do you not see the irony?

Absolutely @fishywaters and the 'blood on their hands' reference is spot on - what government wants that as their legacy? The covid numbers are right here and now so that 'blood' is immediately visible. Personally I believe this government will have far more blood on it's hands if it continues on it's trajectory of Covid above all else.

I think it was about a month ago now that figures came out showing that lockdown was causing 2 additional deaths for every 3 covid deaths. At some point that could tip over so that the ratio is the other way. Will they be judged and measured for that as those deaths won't all happen at once?

As far as I'm concerned, when I can next get into a ballot box, yes I will judge and measure them for failing to balance Covid against the rest of the NHS, education and our economy.

It should be remembered that the lockdown was to prevent the Nhs being overwhelmed. The vulnerable lists were the people thought to be a risk of seeking medical care, the shield was to prevent them overwhelming the Nhs. It is quite a brutal to see it in those terms, but that was the intent.

0.6-1%

That’s somewhere between 396,000 and 660,000 people in the U.K. alone.

Anyone happy with that figure?

To those saying the NHS wasn't overwhelmed first time......why do you think that was....

Those who are saying the nhs wasn't overwhelmed the first time

Are you the same people who are complaining that some treatments got cancelled or delayed ?

So all those vulnerable people who will have no choice but to stay in their houses for years because Covid is endemic in their communities...

Who’s going to feed them? How are they going to get medical treatment for other conditions? How are they going to do things like go to the relatives or funerals of their loved ones? If Covid is simply left to run through our communities like wildfire they won’t be able to leave their homes because they’ll more than likely catch it. If it’s every man for himself then why would any community support kick in for those people? All the volunteers would be back doing their own jobs and too busy to bring food etc.

So many people will be off sick with Covid that many of our services and shops just won’t be able to open.

Vulnerable people aren’t just old people. They’re people like my sister with four kids and a compromised immune system because of the drugs she has to take. If Covid is endemic and he’s sends her kids to school then she’ll get it, and she might die. Fine though eh? They can all just stay at home... forever.

And fuck seeing my mum and dad ever again eh? Or maybe they can choose between dying of Covid or not seeing any of their family and friends ever again. That’s not really a choice, is it?

Ah.

We have a worthy successor to the 'will there be a second wave?' threads.

We have moved onto the 'its an overreaction' threads.

Lets see how this one does by the middle of November, beginning of December before coming to final conclusions...

@midgebabe

Those who are saying the nhs wasn't overwhelmed the first time

Are you the same people who are complaining that some treatments got cancelled or delayed ?

I would say that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed because so much of it was re-purposed by the government for the treatment of Covid patients.

Many treatments and regular appointments (including my own) were simply cancelled and haven't yet been reinstated because it became the National Covid Service. It has been opening up again slowly, but is still far from normal.

For far too long Covid 19 has been the only thing you are allowed to have wrong with you. It is all that the media ever discusses.

The Nightingale hospitals were a great idea but were hardly used and are now mothballed. Part of the problem was that they couldn't be adequately staffed as I understand it. So they were effectively white elephants.

So yes, I am one of those people you are referring to. I see nothing wrong with the opinion.

At the end of the day, it’s a virus. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of viruses in existence that have the potential to prove fatal to any human being, vulnerable, elderly or not. Previously we have lived alongside these viruses with an awareness of their symptoms and how we might avoid them or seek treatment where required. We have also sought to protect the vulnerable, where necessary, as I can recall many occasions in my childhood where my siblings or I had chicken pox for example and my parents immediately made sure that the parents of a child with leukaemia in our primary school were made aware and we were kept away from elderly grandparents and anyone pregnant.
Previously we have been trusted by the ‘powers that be’ to make our own decisions on risk and live our lives, whilst still looking out for the well-being of others. Why not now? What is actually that different to any other virus that exists? The flu season is dreaded so much because it affects so many vulnerable people and ends up spreading around overflowing hospital wards, covid 19 is not different in this respect, yet the world still runs during flu season and cancer patients are still seen and treated and people can still see their gp face to face or have dental treatment. The reaction to this virus was understandable at the beginning when it was new and scenes from Italy and China scared the hell out of everyone, but now it is time to get life back to normal and live with this virus just like we live with all the other ones.

The difference with this one is relatively easy to transmit relatively little natural protection and relatively high hospitalisation and death rates

@Ibake

There are many, many scientists who believe that the numbers Ferguson used were wrong. And they are not quacks. For every expert you throw at me I can show you a similarly respected expert who thinks the opposite. However, for some reason our government chose to use the model of a man who has been wrong in every single one of his epidemical predictions to date.

The data is starting to bear it out, I am happy that the reading I am doing shows this, and I read from a wide range of sources. Some of you might find this interesting and some of you won't because all of our views on this have become very entrenched and polarised.

For those who would like to look at where I am getting my information have a read of this:
drmalcolmkendrick.org/category/covid-19/

and also look at Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta and Karol Sakora as a starting point. They are acknowledged experts in their respective fields who don't happen to agree with the current approach to Covid.

But Ferguson's model can't be out by a factor of 10. It might have problems and be out but not by that much. That theory is disproven by just by looking at the UK figures and the figures in countries where lockdowns were much later than ours.

Kendrick is a quack. And Heneghan, Gupta & Sikora seem to be forming themselves into a group that's equivalent of scientists that deny climate change. I've a feeling the number of epidemiologists taking them seriously is declining quite rapidly.

So all those vulnerable people who will have no choice but to stay in their houses for years because Covid is endemic in their communities...

It could well come down to living alongside this thing, yes, if a vaccine is never successful, which is possible.

The vulnerable then make decisions on how they live their lives and what risks they are prepared to take.

@midgebabe then why is this information on the UK government’s own website?

Nor am I any longer prepared to listen to anyone telling me that I cannot visit my elderly and vulnerable parents, who both only made it alive through the first lockdown by the skin of their teeth. If they want and need me I will make my own decision. I will go to them. I am NOT taking the risk again that they could die alone and without saying goodbye.

I think there is a difference between individuals making these kinds of decisions, and expecting the whole policy to be designed around these specific circumstances. I don’t judge anyone for making these kinds of decisions as it must be really difficult. But if policy were designed around this, it would put my parents more at risk and that would worry me.