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.

Yes, see the comparison Sweden vs Norway, daily deaths curves.

Norway has half the population, but 10x fewer deaths at the peak, and 20x fewer deaths in total.

The Swedish curve dragged on, while in Norway there was a sharp decrease.

Yes in the week or so befor the March lockdown, London was much quieter with offices making arrangements for staff to work from home and in schools absence was high.

The same happened in Portugal. The population and many institutions or companies reacted before the government implemented measures.

Being overweight sadly puts you more at risk of everything - isn't it now a leading cause of cancer, more than smoking

Absolutely true but you can’t catch cancer or a heart attack off someone else.

@Ballany

Aren't Sweden discussing the possibility of a lockdown? There was someone speaking yesterday about the possibility of school closures etc.

Yes! Sound familiar?

Sweden's state epidemiologist has said that he is now willing to recommend lockdown measures such as school closures, and strict limits to the size of gatherings - so long as they are only imposed locally and for three weeks at a time....

What a complete idiot of a scientist. He was completely against it now the u turn! Totally undermines his position originally!

If you look at their total cases in Sweden they are still going up. The daily new cases are still around 300on average daily and have never reached rock bottom.

Lets face it, herd immunity can be achieved if you can become immune to the virus after catching it. So far, what we know about the virus is that immunity is short lived [3 months or so] Expect the cases to rise considerably soon. So maybe round about now!!

@neveradullmoment99

What a complete idiot of a scientist. He was completely against it now the u turn! Totally undermines his position originally!

He is not an idiot. I disagreed with him then, but the fact is that there was no hard evidence to base a decision at that time. We strongly suspected he was wrong, but none of us knew for sure. That he is able to reach a different decision now only shows that he is not an idiot at all, but a good scientist who has weighed the evidence and has based his position on it, rather than stick to an opinion that was formed with much less evidence.

Well looks to me like he is doing a U Turn.

and dont forget, he went against all the other scientists advice/modelling.

Maybe idiot is the wrong word.

A good scientist would take into account the unknown when balancing the risks.

Still I give him respect for the U turn. A wise man may change his mind, a fool never. It's one of my favourite sayings.

@SheepandCow

A good scientist would take into account the unknown when balancing the risks.

Still I give him respect for the U turn. A wise man may change his mind, a fool never. It's one of my favourite sayings.

Yes!!! Although look at Boris. Not a great example as he is a fool.

@neveradullmoment99

and dont forget, he went against all the other scientists advice/modelling.

It happens. Sometimes the lonely voice is right.

Not that I'm a fan, but most of us had to change our minds about this virus in some aspects.

To be fair to him, Sweden didn't do too badly, even if it did poorly. It certainly didn't go the way of Italy, for example, because it's a different country.

Although look at Boris. Not a great example as he is a fool.

Wise people tend to change their minds with time, not one day to the next.
Or are more cautious initially, unlike Boris.
Sweden didn't do nothing. They did implement some measures.
And, unfortunately, the results aren't known for weeks after.
I think most of us were kind of hoping he was right, even though we didn't think he was.

[quote BlueRose18]@cbt944 it’s on worldometer[/quote]
I don't see what you're seeing. There are clearly several hundred new cases on the graph.

Björn Eriksson, Stockholm's health chief, said the long decline in cases in the city had ended.

"The downwards trend is broken," he said. "We can only hope this is a blip, that the spread starts decreasing again." According to the Public Health Agency, 1200 new cases and five deaths have been reported since Friday, a sharp increase on the average of 200 cases a day in recent weeks.

Thing is, this is not going to go away if people ‘follow the rules’ a bit longer.

We have been trying these rules for 6 months. It does not seem to have achieved much in terms of saving lives, but it has killed tens of thousands of people, brought terrible injustice to millions and cost, so far, around £500 billion.

I am still trying to find someone who can coherently explain what we have achieved. The only people attempting to do is reference a ‘worst case’ model, which has already been disproved in multiple ways.

But if we all do as we are told the clever people in charge will make it better right?

Yes Alec.

I think it should be acknowledged in the interests of balance that if we are painting bleak scenarios in terms of letting the virus run & the ‘short sharp shock’ that would ensue as per Imperial’s projections etc we also paint an alternative picture of the worst case scenario in terms of what if there is no effective vaccine or effective treatment?

Like, 18 months Armageddon or 20 years relative misery?

In that case I really don’t think it’s quite the clear cut choice some make it out to be.

Morning doomsters.

"short, sharp shock " vs " 18 months Armageddon or 20 years misery"

I don't really fancy food shortages tbh... And what that brings.

Remember the size of our workforce relative to the number of people it has to feed is fairly small.

@sunglassesonthetable

Morning doomsters.

"short, sharp shock " vs " 18 months Armageddon or 20 years misery"

Sadly it looks like we might get to experience all of those

@RedToothBrush

I don't really fancy food shortages tbh... And what that brings.

Remember the size of our workforce relative to the number of people it has to feed is fairly small.

Never mind workforce we physically can’t grow or rear the raw materials to feed the population. We’ve decimated the farming industry over the decades. Brexit is more of an immediate concern for food supplies.

Short, sharp, shock? I don’t believe that the people advocating this have any comprehension of human behaviour or economics and how these are entwined to be able to advocate this option as a solution to choose. This may end up being unavoidable and happen despite best efforts but there are very good reasons governments globally are at least attempting to control covid. Once the population lose any faith in individual protection they start making their own rules. Rebuilding an economy is much harder with a society that has completely broken away from central leadership.

The consequences of covid will occur with or without intervention. Managing how that will play out is important in how successful any recovery will be and leadership shutting up shop and walking away from any responsibility will not lead to a population prepared to follow a coherent plan to economic recovery.

@AlecTrevelyan006 I asked you earlier why you think Vallance would lie to us, what reason would he have to do so, but I don't think you explained. Sorry if I missed your reply.

@Cornettoninja

Good post & yes it’s clear to me most governments are plowing this choppy course between mitigating deaths & economic destruction but as you say ultimately it comes down to populace compliance

Regarding food production that’s a whole new can of worms - this country hasn’t produced enough to feed itself for a long time & the UK population is still increasing of course

One observation I would make in terms of coming back from an Imperial scenario is that we did it in 1918, when a greater number of the young working age population were affected than would be the case here, and that was immediately after WW1

The countries that have "done well" economically are also those that have protected their population, because people dont go out and spend money if it isnt safe. But lets not allow facts to get in the way of opinion.

Unfortunately I seem unable to post the graph that shows Sweden has done worse economically (as well as in deaths) then many other countries, other than as a download - anyone else able to do so?
www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/202009/large-396317-image1