We have to find a way..

[TheNumbersDontAddUp]

.. To allow those who need or want to shield to do so safely, and with support, and allow those who wish to accept the inherent risk to do so, and continue to work, go out etc because quite simply the economy cannot afford for us to do anything else?

£300 million a month it is mooted that Richie Sunaks new measures will cost.

How can we possibly afford this without irretrievably imploding the entire economy, which will ultimately destroy us all, shielding and non shielding.

I say this as a vulnerable person, at risk.

[quote SheepandCow]@Jrobhatch29
Yes I bang on about it.

Still, I've a lot of catching up to do before I get to the same number of posts we've had asking that we keep The Vulnerable at home and let Covid run unchecked. Nor am I close to reaching the post count of the 'its only old and ill people so who cares brigade. I'll try to catch up.[/quote]

Yes sorry, appears I blended the 300,000 total with the 60,000 three months plus
That is still a lot of people who are suffering for a long time afterwards though.

Also, I suspect that when you are suffering from this, you don't know when you are going to feel "back to normal"?

Must be horrible for people.

If you don't mind me asking, (tell me to get lost if I am being nosy) has this happened to you? If so, are you getting some support from anywhere?

Definitely. Many are slipping through the net. Most of them weren’t even tested in the first place, so no one is keeping track of them properly.

My point was more that there will be way, way more than that worldwide.

@TheDailyCarbuncle
How do you propose we very quickly become like Sweden?

• 50% of the population living alone (easy to socially distance and self isolate).
• Very good well-funded healthcare system.

Btw, Stockholm is facing new restrictions.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/22/stockholm-mulls-local-restrictions-worrying-infection-signs/amp/

You're totally incorrect about that. Sweden kept schools for under 16s and all businesses open, they allowed up to 50 people to meet at a time and they don't require mask wearing
Sweden and the UK are not alike though.

It is like comparing apples with cats.

It’s a huge amount but the other side is not overwhelming healthcare which would also effect everyone

Each time Sunak announces I feel tense, yet more debt.

Then I see people say we need more and it’s too much

But I think he’s making the right decisions on the whole

It's a bit late to close UK borders now. I don't think many of our cases are coming from abroad but from people mixing with other households. If we wanted to do this we would have to have a very severe lockdown with no household mixing for another 3 months. Even then, it's unlikely you would eradicate it.

Many are slipping through the net. Most of them weren’t even tested in the first place, so no one is keeping track of them properly
Absolutely agree with you.

@StarCat2020

You're totally incorrect about that. Sweden kept schools for under 16s and all businesses open, they allowed up to 50 people to meet at a time and they don't require mask wearing Sweden and the UK are not alike though.

It is like comparing apples with cats.

Why is everyone absolutely fixated on believing that Sweden is like another planet? Regardless of differences in population size or schools, Swedish people behave like everyone else in the world when they go to a restaurant or bar, they don't have some weird Swedish way of eating food or having a drink. It is still the case that they kept all those business open, during the whole pandemic, without the entire place collapsing or bodies piling up in the streets.

@JS87

It's a bit late to close UK borders now. I don't think many of our cases are coming from abroad but from people mixing with other households. If we wanted to do this we would have to have a very severe lockdown with no household mixing for another 3 months. Even then, it's unlikely you would eradicate it.

Isn't three months proper lockdown better than a year of this it's all a bit shit and probably getting shitter situation? It's a bit like having an operation. Horrible at the time but worth it afterwards. Letting it all drag out is a false economy.

Why is everyone absolutely fixated on believing that Sweden is like another planet?
I didn't say that.

However UK and Sweden are different:

Population density in Sweden is far lower (and much smaller population).

50% of Swedes live in single person households.

Sweden's death figures are actually crap compared to other countries that are similar to it.

Not many people went to said bars and restaurants. Hence, the Swedish economy is suffering too. That’s the part most people forget.

A two tier society is pretty heartless anyhow, but it would be impossible to achieve.

I didn't realise it was impossible to achieve a two tier society. I thought we had a multi-tiered society anyway. Try comparing the lives of the richest and the poorest - I don't think they are exactly in the same "tier".

*The trouble is, this is a 'common sense' solution, but is scientifically illiterate. It won't work.

Ask the chief medical officer.*

What are your scientific qualifications to make that assessment? Because many scientists - not a few of whom are at the top of their field - disagree fundamentally with the Chief Medical Officer. Just because the government and/or the mainstream media only promote one scientific view does not mean that it is the only view, or even the correct one. In fact, given that "the science" (as Boris keeps referring to these opinions) are paid for by the government, and these people retain their positions at the will of the government, it is a very good idea to compare what they have to say with what other leading experts have to say.

Having done exactly that throughout - and reading medical reports and evidence direct instead of what it says (or doesn't say) in the media - it is quite interesting to note that many different projections and opinions by leading epidemiologists and medical experts have been consistently closer to reality than the ones put forward by the the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer.

@TheNumbersDontAddUp

Of course, by carrying on as normal I would mean mask wearing, sanitising, social distancing etc.

You can speculate that it's not an option (but please remember that not all experts agree on that) because xyz may happen, but if the economy collapses then it becomes a moot point. With no work, no money (or money that is completely devalued and worthless), there will be no food, no hospital treatment etc anyway, and we are irretrievably fucked.

So what do we do? Take a path that will absolutely destroy an economy already on it's knees, or take a chance that we can protect the most vulnerable, and ride out the storm with some, but not overwhelming social and economic losses?

Outwith the hallowed confines of Mumsnet most people want the second, not the first.

So if you mean by carrying on as normal being "mask wearing, sanitising, social distancing etc" what exactly is it that we need to stop doing?

It is the social distancing which is causing most of the problems at work with employers struggling to meet the guidelines and still make a living. The rules about not meeting large groups of people comes under the term 'social distancing' .

I find these posts so lazy in their thinking I can barely be bothered to challenge them mostly but this time I will bite. Since you agree with 'social distancing. Can you be specific about what parts of it you disagree /agree with?

Please also don't use the term 'lockdown' as this can cover so many things. What specific actions do you think we need to stop doing so that we can carry on as normal?

I was saying all this in May. If we'd done it then, we'd be coming out if this shit by now. In time for a proper return to schools, offices, sporting events, pubs, restaurants, and routine hospital appointments. I said it again in August in the vain hope we'd do it in time for a normalish Christmas. It's perhaps too late but we could still rescue the new year. Alternatively, we could be in this exact same situation three months later (with more redundancies, deaths, and Long Covid sufferers). Unfortunately I suspect we'll opt for the latter option.

@SheepandCow this is a genuine question - if we locked down for three months, what would you expect to be the outcome of that? Bearing in mind that we already locked down and covid is still around, would you expect the virus to somehow be gone after three months?

In a population of 10 million, Sweden had over 5,800 deaths.

It wouldn't be gone but the cases would be at a manageably low level.

We didn't properly lockdown. Not least because we had no border restrictions or proper quarantine.

I said on another thread, it's a bit like having an operation. Horrible at the time (painful, scary, unpleasant, restricting) but worth it once it's over and you've recovered.

It's not a fun or pleasant option but it's the lesser of the evils.

@StarCat2020

Yes sorry, appears I blended the 300,000 total with the 60,000 three months plus That is still a lot of people who are suffering for a long time afterwards though.

Also, I suspect that when you are suffering from this, you don't know when you are going to feel "back to normal"?

Must be horrible for people.

If you don't mind me asking, (tell me to get lost if I am being nosy) has this happened to you? If so, are you getting some support from anywhere?

No, I haven't had any personal experience, although I've a relative who had some funny symptoms but nothing troublesome (rash mostly).

But I am not rushing to decide that the young have 'nothing' to fear. Think how much people worry about organ damage in their children from e.g. MDMA. We just need facts before we say it is nothing to worry about or something to worry about.

@Sheepandcow
Sorry for putting the same thing about Sweden as you.

I only just noticed that you had already written it.

I did not mean to copy what you put.

Thanks for the links to proper studies, I will have a look.

@SheepandCow

It wouldn't be gone but the cases would be at a manageably low level.

We didn't properly lockdown. Not least because we had no border restrictions or proper quarantine.

I said on another thread, it's a bit like having an operation. Horrible at the time (painful, scary, unpleasant, restricting) but worth it once it's over and you've recovered.

It's not a fun or pleasant option but it's the lesser of the evils.

So if cases are at a 'manageably low level' what happens then? As soon as you open up again, they start to go up. Do we lockdown again?

@StarCat2020
Not a problem at all.

There's no harm in repeating it. Particularly on a fast moving thread when lots of people might miss earlier posts.

No, I haven't had any personal experience, although I've a relative who had some funny symptoms but nothing troublesome (rash mostly)
Even though I don't know you I am glad that you aren't suffering with this.

To be honest, I think this could be a real problem in the future though especially as it seems to affect people irrespective of age, sex, ethnic origin.