Why are we in lockdown when no one is dying?

[SplunkPostGres]

I don’t understand why we’ve got local lockdown again. Cases are high but deaths are still low. Seems like a lot of cases are asymptomatic? So why are the lockdowns and restrictions needed?

Most people who have died its been because of comorbidities not linked to the virus. The same person would’ve died if they got seasonal flu/cold- it’s sad but it’s what happens when people are vulnerable.

The equivalence between Covid and flu is false. Covid is about 10x times more deadly. Yes, it’s not a particular risk to the young and healthy, but neither is flu.

In other words, most of those who died fro
Covid probably wouldn’t have died had they got
Influenza.

@WiseUpJanetWeiss Do you have a link for that 8%? Studies in the summer showed higher percentages and were based on antibody tests. New t-cell tests are finding immunity in patients who are testing negative for antibodies.

“Most people who have died its been because of comorbidities not linked to the virus. The same person would’ve died if they got seasonal flu/cold- it’s sad but it’s what happens when people are vulnerable.”

No it isn’t - most vulnerable people won’t die from a cold and vulnerable people have the option of a flu vaccine.

Covid on the other hand poses a much bigger risk.

@Derbygerbil And most young, healthy people don’t die from Covid either.

@RepeatSwan

We can't suppress the virus entirely and at some point we have to accept that a certain level of deaths is acceptable- provided NHS not overrun - just as we accept that deaths through other causes are acceptable, or do we expect people to live forever?

We don't 'have to' do anything.

NZ, China, Taiwan, Japan, Greece to name a few varied countries are not 'accepting a certain level of deaths is inevitable'. They are pursuing the virus and suppressing it very very effectively.

Some may prefer to choose to accept high deaths, but we don't have to.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/

Japan has low numbers of deaths, but people are still dying

[quote Racoonworld]@WiseUpJanetWeiss what do you want to happen long term then? The virus isn’t going away. We may not get a vaccine and if we do it won’t be rolled out for a while and may not be that effective. Do you want the country to keep up restrictions long term? What about the effects on education, livelihoods, mental health? You may not be effected by then but lots are. Is it reasonable for grandparents to be expected not to hug grandchildren for a year, peoples businesses to go under because they aren’t allowed to open, children isolating every few weeks and not allowed in school? Where do you draw the line?[/quote]
See, this is the thing. Yes, the virus kills some people but do people genuinely think everyone and everything should be locked down indefinitely? The virus won’t go away.

Other countries have a strategy to control the virus to manageable amounts so that they can go about their lives more normally than U.K.

Look at how aus, Hong Kong and nz dealt with their 2nd waves, they got on top of them quickly, then back up and running. I agree that they haven’t eliminated the virus, but they they have less restrictions than here on the whole.

U.K. on the other hand, waits for things to get bad and then it is too late. People knew schools and unis were going to be an issue, but did not want to take cautious steps, because they were hoping for the best. It’s not the only place though - France and Spain also have issues.

The Irish media have reported on a drop in fatality rates here. The over 65s had a 20% chance of dying during the March/April peak - it's now 5%. The overall fatality rate now is lower than 1%.

Cases have been rising since the end of July here, so all 'lags' accounted for.

Depends what fatality means. Does it mean that IF over 65s got corona, they would have a 1 in 5 chance of dying in mar but 5% now?

Probably explainable by more widespread testing now. In mar/apr, I guess many mild cases were not diagnosed? So those detected would be the severe ones.

[quote bumbleymummy]@WiseUpJanetWeiss Do you have a link for that 8%? Studies in the summer showed higher percentages and were based on antibody tests. New t-cell tests are finding immunity in patients who are testing negative for antibodies.[/quote]
ONS has just under 7% in the summer. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/englandandwales14august2020

I read the 8% estimate somewhere yesterday but can’t find it now.

Does it mean that IF over 65s got corona, they would have a 1 in 5 chance of dying in mar but 5% now?

Those diagnosed with Covid aged over 65 now have 5% chance of dying from it, compared to those diagnosed with Covid in March/April who had a 20% chance of dying from it.

There are a lot of factors feeding into this. Ireland, while obviously testing more now, did not have the same limits on testing in the early days. In fact, they were testing so many that the negativity rate in March was 95%. So testing alone doesn't account for it.

We also have less than 20 people in ICU across the whole country right now. That's about 10 weeks into our rising cases. Hospitalisation rates are a tenth what they were at peak.

While case numbers are high, the situation is very different to March/April.

[quote Racoonworld]@WiseUpJanetWeiss what do you want to happen long term then? The virus isn’t going away. We may not get a vaccine and if we do it won’t be rolled out for a while and may not be that effective. Do you want the country to keep up restrictions long term? What about the effects on education, livelihoods, mental health? You may not be effected by then but lots are. Is it reasonable for grandparents to be expected not to hug grandchildren for a year, peoples businesses to go under because they aren’t allowed to open, children isolating every few weeks and not allowed in school? Where do you draw the line?[/quote]
If you’re going to @ me at least read my post. I am affected by the lockdown. I don’t like the lockdown. I want it all to go away as much as the next person. But this idea of balancing is just a fallacy. If we don’t curb its spread the sheer number of sick people will have a hugely detrimental effect on those very things we all want to keep going.

It’s a pandemic. It’s shit. It’s all about damage limitation.

What I want is for the vaccines that will become available in the next few months to be effective enough to give us herd immunity.

@TheClaws Eased? You mean in the last two days haha. I live alone and all my family and friends live in regional Victoria like many others I know. We are talking about 5-10 cases in the ENTIRE state yet I'm now 'allowed' to go sit in a park amongst people I don't know yet I can't go to my parents and sit in their front yard? I can go swimming with heaps of other people but I can't go fishing alone??? Lol Like what I said, it's a joke. That's my problem, you imbecile, the hypocritical 'rules'. No wonder the suicide stats have gone up.

@bumbleymummy

Absolutely, young people are at very low risk of a Covid... It doesn’t follow though that the mortality of flu and Covid are equivalent.

As a 45 year old, I have a very low risk of dying from both flu and Covid - not as low as a 25 year old - but still very low. I still have a much higher relative chance of dying from Covid than the flu. However, I’m not overly concerned by catching either. If the world was full of people like me, I’d argue we should all get back completely to normal. As it is, I believe we need some measures - though I believe the local lockdowns in some places are a bridge too far.

@bellinisurge

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-more-people-died-coronavirus-19011148

Or are people who aren't you that die of a preventable illness not important

But it’s not a preventable illness. It’s a virus endemic in the community and will be forever probably, when when there’s a vaccine.

@bumbleymummy

The data on antibodies is confusing. We know that some hotspots have antibodies above 50% (certain Mumbai slums - 58%; a neighbourhood in Queens, NYC - 51%, and there are some higher still in 60-80% range though can’t find source), so even if there is t-cell immunity, it doesn’t seem to be a massive factor, and indicates the U.K., even London, is well short of herd immunity (though London may have enough to blunt a resurgence somewhat). Having said that, antibodies do seem to wane over time, so that also needs to be recognised, though the extent of this is unknown.... Also, waning antibodies might mean that antibody surveys understate those who had Covid, but it might also mean some of those who had it are susceptible again! Would they be less susceptible? Hopefully, but there was a recent case of an American who caught Covid twice (slightly different strains so they knew it wasn’t a resurgence of the original) and ended up hospitalised the second time around, having been only mildly affected first time around. Another case of reinfection showed the opposite.

There is still so much we don’t know, so it’s very difficult to reach conclusions. Beware premature claims of herd immunity though. A month back there were claims from a doctor that the U.K. had herd immunity as he was sure cases would have risen given that we’d been more relaxed over the summer.... That claim hasn’t aged well unfortunately!

@WouldBeGood, but it is likely we’ll have a vaccine that is effective enough to stop the virus spreading as severely. Also, if you look across history, pandemics do come to an end for a variety of reasons. Some take longer than others. Locking down areas to prevent spread is not a new idea. There’s a big difference between a virus going away and people being vaccinated to protect vulnerable groups from it. Measles, mumps and rubella haven’t gone away, but they are less of an issue due to the vaccine (sometimes illnesses like these are a problem at unis where unvaccinated people mix and also sometimes in some areas of cities with those who’ve moved to the UK and did not have access to a jab in their home country). There also will not a be a stop in research into the illness just because the first vaccine that’s effective enough is found. It’s really not been that long yet, March to now. The point is that everybody isn’t locked down.

Even in local lockdowns there are a surprising number of exceptions to restrictions eg. You can’t leave unless your child goes to childcare outside the area, you are providing care or for compassionate reasons, for your child to go and live with their parent outside the area if parents are separated, to attend education outside the area, to go to work if you can’t work from home (some employers will not be giving fair choice in this despite legal issues), to do building or repair work or to do volunteering. That’s a fair few and will be taken differently by many. People can still go to the pub or a cafe in their lockdown and meet people outside. It’s not actually that restricted, though some restrictions (unable to see family, maternity units not allowing partners, important other NHS appointments being cancelled or not booked) have serious consequences. Lockdown/restrictions slowing the spread does actually help those who need treatment most outside of covid being able to get treatment or medical care.

Everyone and everything isn’t locked down immediately, but some of us do think there should be restrictions, yes. I find it stranger that people can’t accept some restrictions and that they’d rather just have more deaths. I still question the effectiveness of some and also why some have been chosen over others, but I don’t believe in getting rid of them all or only giving the very vulnerable restrictions. It’s very unlikely to be here very long term in the way it is now, it’s highly focused on as a topic at the moment, treatments will improve, a vaccine will come, studies will provide much needed data. It’s much more likely that in a few years, we’ll have more information and more knowledge and a vaccine that’s effective enough for us to go back to how we lived before. Until then, we’re likely to see restrictions on and off of varying degrees.

The point is we aren't having local lockdowns because we think 13 deaths is unacceptable. Of course people die of something every day and it is inevitable that there will be deaths from covid and we shouldn't want to eradicate all deaths as, like you say that would be illogical when people also die from other viruses.
However, the reason for the restrictions is that the number of deaths from covid (and knock on consequences such as a collapse of health care systems) have the potential to spiral in a way that we don't see for other infectious diseases in 2020.
Luckily whilst half the population seems unable to see this, governments around the world do and are doing something to try to prevent this happening.
The other problem is people love to complain. If we had just done nothing and hundreds of thousands died and people couldn't, for example, get their child treated in A and E after an accident due to covid people would be complaining just as much as they are now about the restrictions.

@WiseUpJanetWeiss unless you have information I don't, there is zero chance there will be a vaccine available by end of year, never mind being rolled out to the general population.

What we do have now are improved treatment strategies for cases that do result in hospitalisation which should result in less deaths provided NHS not overwhelmed with cases.

I agree with you OP, whether it is a popular opinion or not.

I look at the mess around us with rules that appear random and arbitrary and I find it all ridiculous now.

I'm not a socialiser. I'm a person who more naturally keeps some distance most of the time anyway. I wear my mask wherever I am required to do so even though I hate it.

The rules themselves are batshit though. Children and their teachers in bubbles that can run to hundreds in schools with no possibility of social distancing!! Yet once outside of school groups of more than 6 are illegal?? Students virtually locked in their halls of residence!!?? People's perfectly good businesses and livelihoods either bankrupt already or under severe threat due to the developing cycle of lockdown and re-open!!

I'm OK with masks (just about, and only for the short term) and some social distancing even though I am not going to shriek and dance hysterically up and down if someone does get a little too close. I also have no issue with people who are not wearing masks.

[quote rookiemere]@WiseUpJanetWeiss unless you have information I don't, there is zero chance there will be a vaccine available by end of year, never mind being rolled out to the general population.

What we do have now are improved treatment strategies for cases that do result in hospitalisation which should result in less deaths provided NHS not overwhelmed with cases.[/quote]
It’s been widely reported that there are at least two trials expected to report within the next few weeks and vaccines have been advance ordered, so something appearing in small quantities this year is possible.

I agree with your last paragraph, although I think “provided” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-more-people-died-coronavirus-19011148

Or are people who aren't you that die of a preventable illness not important"

Unfortunately it's not a preventable illness. There's no vaccine and it's endemic. Things like measles, mumps and rubella are preventable as they have an effective vaccine. Flu is not a preventable illness either.

Cherry picking data op to make your point stronger.
Covid-19 deaths rise 40% in a week in the week ending September 18 www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8784533/Covid-19-deaths-rise-40-week-139-victims-week-ending-September-18.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

I see that the government is planning to vaccinate the elderly and vulnerable first. I’d personally vaccinate health staff, carers and teachers first, elderly and vulnerable second.

If the vaccine works.