I genuinely don’t get it?!

[Rapphue]

Hopeful for balanced and sincere posts here rather than the assumption that I’m ‘playing ignorance’ or some other accusation because my question undermines the government narrative.

FWIW I’m educated and well read, albeit I don’t have huge in depth knowledge politics, nor do I claim to!

But I don’t understand why we are having restrictions imposed for a virus that is no worse than other illnesses. Even if I accept that it is harmless to the NHS should it escalate fast and make many ill at the same time (so far no hospitals have been maxed out with corona - my SIL works as a hospital doctor in intense care and has said there hasn’t been even 50% corona patients in any ward at one time. She works in a busy London hospital)...even if I accept it could escalate and we don’t want that, then:

1. Why is there suddenly a lack of concern about public health in general? People are dying because they are having treatment postponed due to Coronavirus. Hospitals are not busy and certainly not full of corona patients. It seems crazy to me that anyone who may fall ill non corona related is now at the back of the queue. Tough shit if that ends in your death.

1. Pubs open until 10pm. I use this as one example of many arbitrary rules. Why does the virus suddenly operate after 10pm? Is it a vampire? Surely you can infect just as many people at 9:59pm as you can at 10pm. Is it just to reduce risk overall? If so then I think someone needs to read a gcse science textbook... the risk has already been taken if the pub is open full stop.

1. Cashless society...erm. Why?

I’m not trying to incite some sort of dramatic post. I hope there are honest reasons for operating as we have the last few months. I hope I am wrong to feel cynical. I hope - and suspect - I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand why this is happening how it is.

As far as I can tell this is very much about controlling people’s lives to their detriment. If it was about health why on Earth are we letting people get sick and delaying treatment because of a virus?

Is there something in the London protests yesterday? Am I missing something medical, political or scientific here?

But I am allowed to chase a fox with a group of friends.

Point me to the part of the law that gives an exemption solely for fox hunting.

@Flaxmeadow

Hopeful for balanced and sincere posts here rather than the assumption that I’m ‘playing ignorance’ or some other accusation because my question undermines the government narrative.

Most governments have used the same, or similar, tactics of lockdown

FWIW I’m educated and well read, albeit I don’t have huge in depth knowledge politics, nor do I claim to!

But I don’t understand why we are having restrictions imposed for a virus that is no worse than other illnesses.

It is worse because

1. the rate at which can spread
2. the incubation period, and amount of young people who are asymptomatic, means that it can affect a lot people in a short period of time
3. It is airborne and can survive on surfaces for hours
4. It has a higher mortality and infection rate than flu

Even if I accept that it is harmless to the NHS should it escalate fast and make many ill at the same time (so far no hospitals have been maxed out with corona - my SIL works as a hospital doctor in intense care and has said there hasn’t been even 50% corona patients in any ward at one time. She works in a busy London hospital)...even if I accept it could escalate and we don’t want that, then:

1. Why is there suddenly a lack of concern about public health in general? People are dying because they are having treatment postponed due to Coronavirus. Hospitals are not busy and certainly not full of corona patients. It seems crazy to me that anyone who may fall ill non corona related is now at the back of the queue. Tough shit if that ends in your death.

People are not having treatments for serious illness postponed. If they have been it was only for a matter if weeks. Two people I know have serious health conditions and their appointments resumed after a couple of weeks

2. Pubs open until 10pm. I use this as one example of many arbitrary rules. Why does the virus suddenly operate after 10pm? Is it a vampire? Surely you can infect just as many people at 9:59pm as you can at 10pm. Is it just to reduce risk overall? If so then I think someone needs to read a gcse science textbook... the risk has already been taken if the pub is open full stop.

Because there has to be a balance between lockdowns and the economy

3. Cashless society...erm. Why?

Because its cleaner than money

I’m not trying to incite some sort of dramatic post. I hope there are honest reasons for operating as we have the last few months. I hope I am wrong to feel cynical. I hope - and suspect - I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand why this is happening how it is.

As far as I can tell this is very much about controlling people’s lives to their detriment. If it was about health why on Earth are we letting people get sick and delaying treatment because of a virus?

Without lockdowns, the virus has the potential to infect and make a lot people very ill in a short space of time. This would mean the collapse of the health services, and probably other services too, the police, social services etc. There would be no ambulances, no hospital beds, no one would answer the call. People would be dying alone, without any medical help

Without lockdown half a million would have died in a matter of weeks in the UK alone, and many more would require hospital treatment. This would have happened very quickly. All this was explained repeatedly in March by all governments in Europe. It was explained over and over again

It is about slowing the spread down in order to save the health services. This is the reason across the globe but lifting lockdown, to test the waters, is also about saving the economy, because we need the economy to have functional services as well

It's a balancing act ATM. We will probably have rolling lockdowns. Strict then light then strict and repeat, for however long it takes

Is there something in the London protests yesterday? Am I missing something medical, political or scientific here?

They are stubborn idiots with an axe to grind. Ignore them

I admire your patience in answering the OP's points so calmly.

I think there should be a copy saved so we can cut and paste every time someone asked these questions

Swedes are also significantly less likely to be overweight, spend alot more on healthcare, have lower incidence of respiratory diseases to start with, and generally better health and life,expectancy.

They also had the same clusterfuck with their care homes.

The op wasn't in listening mode tbh.

I'd love to learn from Sweden.

I really look forward to seeing less densely populated more spread out population, with enough housing so that 50% are able to live on their own.

I also can't wait to have a very good well funded healthcare system. Higher taxes are worth it.

I'm up for more civic mindedness too.

That said, neighbouring Scandi countries have healthier economies, a lower Covid death rate...AND all the good stuff like a less dense population and excellent healthcare. Perhaps we could aim for the top and be like them?

So you're not taking in a word anyone says unless it's prefaced with 'THEY don't want you to know this' @Ophelia2020?

What’s the bizarre obsession with chasing foxes about?!?

@DameFanny

So you're not taking in a word anyone says unless it's prefaced with 'THEY don't want you to know this' *@Ophelia2020*?

Clearly not, to be credible you need a YouTube link or at least a Twitter screen shot.

(Because YouTube definitely isn’t a tool of the global elite used to control - no siree /s)

Or a Facebook post screenshotted rather than just shared with an unusually grainy photo and a generic name ...

I think there should be a copy saved so we can cut and paste every time someone asked these questions

I agree

One of the most persistent questions is

"but the deaths are only...so why did we lockdown"

But when you answer that the deaths are not as high precisely because we DID lockdown, they never answer!

Also no one seems to remember the briefings and what was said at them back in March, when we were clearly told the situation was very serious and we must have lockdowns and that we would probably have rolling lockdowns for a long time.

Chasing foxes = class war!

@MintyMabel

But I am allowed to chase a fox with a group of friends.

Point me to the part of the law that gives an exemption solely for fox hunting.

I know it seems ludicrous but it is a thing!

In the Grauniad:

Grouse shooting and hunting with guns in England are among outdoor activities exempted from the government’s “rule of six” coronavirus regulations.

Confirmation that the latest health protection regulations permit groups of up to 30 to take part in any “sports gathering” was published only minutes before coming into force.

Source: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/14/hunting-in-england-exempt-from-rule-of-six-covid-19-restrictions

@SallySeven

Chasing foxes = class war!

An! That makes sense - thank you

Cashless society - wasn't this on The Handmaids Tale and then all access cut off?

(Not sure if this has already been mentioned - haven't read the full thread yet)

Well the USS Enterprise and star fleet were from a cashless society and they seemed pretty enlightened if we’re looking to fiction for answers.

Ye OP I'm mostly with you, I have no idea either!

I think one of the "key" things about covid that makes it stand apart from other things like flu, is that you could have it and be symptomatic, or have it so mildly you don't realise. So the contagious factor just increases and increases, whereas if you had flu, you'd know about it and most likely be in bed, so the chance of you passing it to anyone once your symptoms show are super low.

Meant to say *asymptomatic.

One of the most persistent questions is

"but the deaths are only...so why did we lockdown"

The other one is "but most people survive after having the virus"

I've given up bothering to post that talking in terms of "surviving" I.e. not dying is pretty insulting to all the suffering Long COVID people continue to endure months after the main viral infection has dissipated- if they think organ damage, reduction in lung capacity, muscle pain etc is trivial then they're seriously ill-informal

I completely agree with you...I don't get it either. I really don't. I think increasing numbers feel this way thank goodness. The tide is turning.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362031035-7/fulltext

Johan Giesecke
Published:May 05, 2020

Many countries (and members of their press media) have marvelled at Sweden's relaxed strategy in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: schools and most workplaces have remained open, and police officers were not checking one's errands in the street. Severe critics have described it as Sweden sacrificing its (elderly) citizens to quickly reach herd immunity.1 The death toll has surpassed our three closest neighbours, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, but the mortality remains lower than in the UK, Spain, and Belgium.

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.3 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.

PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.

These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.
Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.

I declare no competing interests.

@Cornettoninja

My point being was the OP @Rapphue suggesting her feeling of unease with this was something along with these lines.

As it was very creepy watching this.

i see the YouTube insults have started.

Again, anybody who questions the way this has been handled is a fucking loon. I'll brainlessly chant that it was right to put covid patients in old people's homes and eat out was a good idea.

A very significant study out of Japan:

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20198796v1.full.pdf

A group of 615 people were regularly tested for antibodies throughout the year. Started at 6% prevalence throughout the testing period, but spread to 47%.

Antibodies faded quickly, so this high level of seroprevalence would not have been found through isolated testing.

Giesecke may be right:

The virus spreads like wildfire as demonstrated by these student outbreaks. 100+ people in some halls testing positive a few weeks into term. You are simply fighting a losing battle trying to stop it.

In March it was so widespread that it was finding the most vulnerable in society. This time between antibodies, the immune and the fact that many of the vulnerable have already passed, there is no way we get another peak to rival the first one.

I agree with some of your points OP:

1. Why is there suddenly a lack of concern about public health in general?

I agree that it seems crazy that we are so worried about Covid19, but don't seem so concerned about getting urgent treatment for cancers, diabetes, all sorts of really serious illnesses. How I have seen my elderly parents go in the last few months is frightening - they were independent, managing well - but a few months of isolate and one of them not getting treatment has really brought them down. I am shocked when I see them and I think it's happened in many homes over the entire country.

1. Pubs open until 10pm.

I don't go to pubs much, mostly because I don't drink alcohol. I assume this rule was brought in because the Gov believe that the drunker people are the less they SD (which is probably true from my observations). However, they under estimated the stupidity of people and those who don't "enter into the spirit of common sense" as now people just start drinking earlier and crowd out together at closing time.

1. Cashless society...erm. Why?

I assume this is simply because there were concerns that with coins/notes passing hands it may be a way of transmission and it would be hard to clean money at every transaction so many ppl went card only. I don't know if it's problem that money does transfer CV19 or not, but I think that's what behind it.

I also have my own question. Everyday for months we have heard how many infections have been identified that day. But surely this totally depends on how many tests are done and we can offer. So if the number of infections per day now is higher than it was in April, surely that's just because symptoms are better published, more people try and get tested and we have more tests (although not enough it seems). I am really puzzled why "number of infections per day" is something that is reported.

Re comparisons with Sweden - there are far fewer of them, they are more spread out, they have a different culture and often advice is strongly adhered to (according to my colleagues in Stockholm).