Is it time we learned to live with Covid? BBC article today

[PennyDreadfuI]

From the BBC

I'm beginning to think that it might be (and I'm higher risk). It's here to stay, after all, and lockdowns every few months cannot go on indefinitely. All the money spent on lockdown measures could perhaps be ploughed into the NHS to pay for staff/hospitals to provide care for those who need it when they become ill (and to ease the backlog the last lockdown created).

At some point we will have to yes. I'm high risk too and it doesn't bother me really. It's just life

You arguement would have more force if you explained what you think "living with it" would look like. Would all people be forced to continue as normal whatever the infection rate, or just the poor fe?

I was just looking for a thread on this! There's a lot of sense in this article.

Quote from the article from Prof Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University:

''If we keep introducing restrictions and lockdowns while we wait for a vaccine it will be the young that suffer the most, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds. We can't keep doing this - it would be an injustice."

I know, at the risk of sounding like donald trump, just let it wash through the community now.

Can't agree more!

Yes it is. This thing won’t be suppressed.

Yes we absolutely need to live with it. As pp has said it's the young suffering the most. I spent the weekend watching grass roots football, the joy on the faces of the players was lovely to see, however, they're all aware that it's probably not going to last and they'll be banned from playing and training again soon. Their education is being seriously disrupted, even now. They need to be allowed to live their lives.

So @WiserOlder can you unpack how that would look in practise? If COVID is washing through my office, do I need to keep going in or lose my job? If there's a big outbreak at school, must I send my kids in or be fined? How will ICU places be awarded - first come, first served, or by age or what? Masks optional?

@Porcupineinwaiting

You arguement would have more force if you explained what you think "living with it" would look like. Would all people be forced to continue as normal whatever the infection rate, or just the poor fe?

I don't really have an argument as such - I was just linking to the BBC article and musing on it.

I expect it would be similar to pre-Covid in that those who were more likely to be badly affected by flu/other viruses took a little extra care. My medication means I'm very at risk to flu and other infections, so I've been in the habit of being super vigilant about things like hygiene, not getting too close to people etc since I was diagnosed. Admittedly I have a flu jab every year but I know from bitter experience that they don't always work.

Maybe we could give lottery numbers to prospective ICU patients.

@RainbowParadise

I was just looking for a thread on this! There's a lot of sense in this article.

Quote from the article from Prof Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University:

''If we keep introducing restrictions and lockdowns while we wait for a vaccine it will be the young that suffer the most, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds. We can't keep doing this - it would be an injustice."

There was, wasn't there. It's the first time I've seen anything like this on the BBC.

The awful truth is is that it's not going anywhere, and perhaps the focus should now be on investing in care for those who need it rather than more draconian measures.

I have to say I agree.

As much as I'm surprised at myself for thinking that, the wider impact is going to be huge. Job losses and education losses are going to have a far wider impact. I say that with vulnerable family members who I would obviously be devastated if they died.

I agree too. I'm beyond anxious that schools close again. My kids are so much happier now they are back with their friends

So who gets included in the definition of vulnerable? If you are a black bus driver in his 50s, what steps should you/your employer be prepared to take? Do doctors surgeries and hospitals go back to business as usual and you either go in for care or lump it?

Are we talking about a Swedish type model or survival of the richest fittest?

Depends on vaccine trials.

@Wetweekend99 I'm surprised at myself for agreeing, too.

I have an autoimmune condition and I'm overweight so not in the best place should I catch it. Also I know of several people who have died from it, including someone in his 40s with the same condition I have.

But I've also seen the awful toll lockdown took on DD, who lost her job within a week of it starting (she'd only just started there so didn't qualify for furlough). She's just graduated with a first but can't get work anywhere - she was planning to do a masters this year but can't support herself to do so now. Worse though is the effect on her mental health, which wasn't great to begin with.

I fully supported the first lockdown and understood why it was necessary, but after months of that I don't think I could support another one. I'm in a local lockdown area and this is bad enough. Months of being unable to go further than a mile radius of my house (mobility issues mean I rely on public transport to go further which wasn't possible in LD) is a frightening prospect. Goodness knows what it would do to DD. And we're just one family out of millions.

I agree with it too, and particularly this from Prof Sunetra Gupta, "She says allowing young and healthy people to be exposed over the winter will be of benefit in the years to come. "This is how we have always managed viruses. Why is this so different?"

Absolutely. We can't contain it with lockdown measures. We know now (which we didn't at the start) who is likely to be more vulnerable to it. We can find ways of giving increased protection to those who need it instead of trying and failing to protect everyone, regardless of whether they need or want it.

@Porcupineinwaiting

So who gets included in the definition of vulnerable? If you are a black bus driver in his 50s, what steps should you/your employer be prepared to take? Do doctors surgeries and hospitals go back to business as usual and you either go in for care or lump it?

Are we talking about a Swedish type model or survival of the richest fittest?

I hear what you're saying - but the poorest also suffer far worse during lockdown. Children especially - particularly ones who have no internet access at home for distant learning. And those who can't afford things like private dentistry - my local dentists are still doing no NHS work, just private.

I'm not saying there's an easy answer - there absolutely isn't. But what we're doing now isn't sustainable. We can't still be locking down every few months in one, five, ten years.

YES!

And what would these ways of protecting the vulnerable be? How can we protect the care home resident who is being looked after by a mother of three children who are all at school full time? How do we protect the vulnerable 55 year old who is married to an ICU nurse?

@Nellodee

And what would these ways of protecting the vulnerable be? How can we protect the care home resident who is being looked after by a mother of three children who are all at school full time? How do we protect the vulnerable 55 year old who is married to an ICU nurse?

How are we protecting them now?

@Porcupineinwaiting

So who gets included in the definition of vulnerable? If you are a black bus driver in his 50s, what steps should you/your employer be prepared to take? Do doctors surgeries and hospitals go back to business as usual and you either go in for care or lump it?

Are we talking about a Swedish type model or survival of the richest fittest?

@Porcupineinwaiting it's pretty clear that continuing with severe lockdown measures will disproportionately affect poorer people and push more people into poverty.

The lockdowns and restrictions are to buy time while a vaccine is developed and doctors understand how best to treat patients who are seriously ill.
It's not just flu. It's a contagious illness with serious and unknown long term effects.
The Government could generate income to pay for support for businesses etc if it wanted to (scrap HS2, collect a bit more tax from the dodgers)
Kids are back at school, many places of work have found ways to carry on, some businesses will be doing very well out of this. Life has changed, not stopped.

@Beamur

The lockdowns and restrictions are to buy time while a vaccine is developed and doctors understand how best to treat patients who are seriously ill. It's not just flu. It's a contagious illness with serious and unknown long term effects. The Government could generate income to pay for support for businesses etc if it wanted to (scrap HS2, collect a bit more tax from the dodgers) Kids are back at school, many places of work have found ways to carry on, some businesses will be doing very well out of this. Life has changed, not stopped.

@Beamur I don't think there's many people that believe we should go back to normal life. But I don't believe we should increase restrictions beyond what they currently are and certainly we need to ensure that as many people as possible do not lose their jobs.