How much are you willing to accept?

[TheFatBottomLine]

There are a lot of threads asking those who do not believe in further lockdown etc, how many people catching covid etc they are prepared to accept in this scenario.. So I'm asking those who want us to be stricter, to lockdown again etc.. How many businesses collapsing, how many unemployed, how many losing their homes, how many with declining mental and physical health, how many years of trying to repair all the damage this has caused, etc etc are you prepared to accept as the price of further restricrions and lockdown?

It's very hard and I think everyone's views are personal. For example I live in the southwest and know absolutely know one here or that I know who lives elsewhere that has even had the virus.

However I know more than 30 people that have lost their jobs a their businesses. My daughter is autistic and her mental health has taken a massive hit and I know my elderly grandparents are really lonely and upset with it all.

So from my point of views it's hugely disproportionate. However I can imagine for someone that knows people who's lives have been taken by the virus would have another opinion.

What I really can't understand it's the huge number of people that die in the uk a year due to smoking related illnesses and the even higher amount of hospital admissions that go with those numbers.

If they really cared about not overwhelming the NHS and saving lives, I don't understand why smoking isn't banned completely ( I get that this won't help things immediately but would years down the line)

It's not just about Covid deaths though is it? I have several family members who can't access non-emergency (but still affecting quality of life) medical care because resources have been focused onto Covid. So unless we stop treating Covid patients (which is a decision no one wants to make), then allowing the number of cases to go up is accepting that there is going to be a worse health service for everything else, which in turn has its impacts ...

We need to address how to work/attend school and universities in a way that minimises risk. We have to try and get the balance right. The only thing I can think of to minimise infection and deaths is for everyone to wear a mask when in public places or when mixing indoors with people other than your usual household.

@Pumpertrumper

"I'd rather 5% of the country were lost than the 95% left suffer wide spread job losses, poverty, hunger, mental and physical health crisis (my DF can’t get cancer treatment BECAUSE COVID)"
What if your DF and your sibling were definitely in that 5%? Is that okay?

@Itsabeautifuldayheyhey

We need to address how to work/attend school and universities in a way that minimises risk. We have to try and get the balance right. The only thing I can think of to minimise infection and deaths is for everyone to wear a mask when in public places or when mixing indoors with people other than your usual household.

But places like France have shown that mask wearing everywhere has done absolutely naff all to stop this second wave!

Your premise is wrong OP. Completely wrong.

There is no way the Tories would fuck the economy by lockdown unless they thought it would be more fucked without.

Do you really think there's a choice between lockdown and normality? With nothing else going on?

High rates of covid = no A&E access for your kid if they fall down the stairs = ambulances taking longer and longer if you have a heart attack

High rates of covid = teachers going off sick/isolating, employees going off sick / isolating in key sectors like food supply and distribution

Low rates of covid = as back to normal as possible.

The government actions are aiming to keep covid rates low so we can be as normal as possible (knowing the virus is there and ready to zoom back into it's contagious action the minute we start being too lax on masks or social distancing)

It’s already gone way too far. And it’s mind boggling how people are encouraging the government to keep taking away more and more freedoms and rights, some of which never will be returned to us. Pay attention to all the changes and legislation that is being sneaked through currently. Read more than just the headlines. So many laws quietly changing. These are scary times for sure and our government has more than a whiff of dictatorship about it these days.

@Forgone90

What I really can't understand it's the huge number of people that die in the uk a year due to smoking related illnesses and the even higher amount of hospital admissions that go with those numbers.

If they really cared about not overwhelming the NHS and saving lives, I don't understand why smoking isn't banned completely ( I get that this won't help things immediately but would years down the line)

Because the tobacco industry is worth billions.

We need to consider what is the Economy for?

I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to give the population a reasonable standard of living, including food, housing, healthcare, education probably in that order, followed by leisure activities - hobbies, holidays, eating and drinking out. Also linked in there is socialising/family life, which I count as leisure but many people would count as a necessity. and shopping for clothes, treats etc.

The parts of the economy which are at greatest risk at present are the ones which are simply moving money around - coffee shops, eating out are mainly moving cash from the better-off to the minimum waged. Could also be described as monetising social interaction.

Could we simply manage without a lot of these jobs, but pay much higher benefits and/or re-employ the people in useful work, that actually produces something, or improves the quality of life in general.

Just musing, would really like to do a complete book about my theories.

If they closed the pubs and bars we may not need a national lockdown - that would be my preference

These are people's JOBS. Their livelihoods.

The parts of the economy which are at greatest risk at present are the ones which are simply moving money around - coffee shops, eating out are mainly moving cash from the better-off to the minimum waged. Could also be described as monetising social interaction.

It could also be described as having some enjoyment in life!

Could we simply manage without a lot of these jobs, but pay much higher benefits and/or re-employ the people in useful work, that actually produces something, or improves the quality of life in general.

What do you consider to be useful work and how do you know people are cut out for it? If I lost my job, which may or may not be thought of as useful, there'd be no point in saying I had to retrain as a nurse for example, I couldn't do it for many reasons.

I think if pubs, restaurants and coffee shops do close life will be very dull.

Dustballs.... sort of explains all the preperation we're having to make altho a lot of my colleagues are unwilling to do it again so we are short staffed.

@Itsabeautifuldayheyhey

My sibling and DF are vulnerable so whilst there is no way to know they would be in the 5% it would certainly be rolling the dice. Arguably nobody is 100% in that 5%, there have been people who should ‘on paper’ have died from Covid who have recovered and many who should have been fine who have unfortunately passed away.

But my DF is at greater risk from not receiving adequate cancer care than he is from Covid. Covid is a roll the dice for him, his lymphatic cancer is almost certainly going to kill him eventually if not treated.

There will be lots of people out there just like my DF whose lives are being put at risk by the measures in place to limit Covid. That’s not ok. People pushing for another lock down just don’t want to acknowledge that what they’re actually saying is ‘put your lives in danger to save the ones we care about’.

My DF and sibling can shield, they can close the front door and not go out if they value their lives above everything else. During non lockdown vulnerable people still have the option to isolate whilst others can weigh up the risks for themselves. Demanding that the country take away that right from lots of low risk people just trying to get by is extremely selfish!

My 17yr old ds has Aspergers and severe anxiety and his already fragile MH has taken a huge hit. I worry myself sick over him and he’s agreed to take a low dose of AD’s after many a conversation with the doctor over the phone during lockdown. A 17yr old shouldn’t have a worry in the world.

I worry about our kids. The generation has been thrown under a bus. My son sits his A levels next year having missed a huge chunk of proper learning, he has struggled with home learning and can’t cope.

I have seen on my Twitter within the last few weeks, several young people have taken their own lives which is heartbreaking.
I think a lot of people underestimate the effect on teens and children, they’re not all resilient.

Also, I think the pubs opening have a lot to answer for.

What I really can't understand it's the huge number of people that die in the uk a year due to smoking related illnesses and the even higher amount of hospital admissions that go with those numbers.

If they really cared about not overwhelming the NHS and saving lives, I don't understand why smoking isn't banned completely ( I get that this won't help things immediately but would years down the line)

Forgone90 this is so true.

So many of you are prepared to give up your civil liberties and completely ruin whats left of the economy while practically shutting down all cancer screenings and treatments through further lockdowns, all causing untold future death and despair.

And yet, in 2017/18 there were 489,300 hospital admissions attributable to smoking and 77,800 deaths (2017), not to mention the cost to the economy and NHS from the ongoing medical support needed for smoking related COPD etc. Where's the Government and MSM extreme reaction to these facts? Where's the mass hysteria for completely banning smoking? If it really is all about saving lives, saving the NHS and saving the economy, why aren't we all up in arms about the tobacco industry? How many covid obsessors out there smoke?

Happy to try and do our minimal bit to help.

As long as we can see one other household at a time. We all need at least this. Happy to distance, wear masks, get tested, download app etc.

Happy for taxes to increase after to contribute to recovery.

If our small contributions keep more people healthy, in employment and education, and stops everyone going mad.

Want a vaccine. If the powers that be said viable vaccine in Spring 2021 for all, balls as it is, would be ok to do all this awful until then.

It's impossible to save everyone be that emotionally, financially, health wise. But happy to do what we can for a bit longer to try.

This has been discussed on here ad-infinitum and nothing I can say will convince you that those same things, economic disaster, etc., will happen if we just let it spread. The middle ground where we wear masks, social distance and self isolate will keep business open AND keep the infection rate low. But only if WE ALL DO IT.

@amusedtodeath1

This has been discussed on here ad-infinitum and nothing I can say will convince you that those same things, economic disaster, etc., will happen if we just let it spread. The middle ground where we wear masks, social distance and self isolate will keep business open AND keep the infection rate low. But only if WE ALL DO IT.

For how long though? Until spring (the 6 months they said)? Or until there’s a vaccine which could be years away? I’m not willing to live my life like this for years, no.

It's not just how many deaths are you willing to tolerate but the circumstances under which they die. Are you willing to have huge amounts of doctors abs nurses with PTSD? Are you willing to have bodies piled up because services are overwhelmed. Willing to have mass burials? Willing to not be able to be seen for anything but COVID because we completely overwhelm the system? It's not just about how many lives you're willing to trade for the almighty pound. The circumstances matter too or maybe they don't to those who are willing to trade lives for money?

Lifting restrictions will not magically help the economy. Businesses need workers and patrons to be healthy enough to attend. If a significant proportion of workers are off burying relatives or sick themselves the supply chain for all sorts of businesses will collapse.

This is not straightforward.

@Pumpertrumper

‘Would you rather thousands of children (the least impacted) and young families be forced into poverty and hunger because the economy has collapsed just so that you can save your 92 year old gran?’
‘Would you rather thousands of people suffering awful illnesses like cancer die due to lack of adequate treatment, so you can save your 1 vulnerable family member?’

So let's flip this round again. It isn't just 92 year old grans who are vulnerable. There are, depending on how you cut it, between 2 and 15 million vulnerable. I in 10 of the shielding are said to have school age kids (like me). (I've seen this quoted but myself am still looking for more data).

We think that at the peak there were approximately 1-2 million people infected. We have had , again depending on how you count the figures, about .5% deaths of people infected.

It seems that immunity is unlikely to last many months ( we don't really know).

So, if many millions of us were allowed to become infected, say half the population, we would be looking at potentially dozens thousands of deaths this winter (.5% would make for 175,000 deaths) not just of the very elderly, but of people with different vulnerabilities, all through society.

Worse still, first of all, if the health service gets overwhelmed and the 20% who need hospital admission can't be treated, mortality rates go up. Could be to 3-4% of the number infected.

Also, if you get flu and covid together, that could double your mortality.

Now, even if you don't really mind all these people dying very much, it will create a lot of chaos in the health services, So it would be hard for other people to get their treatment for cancer anyway. Also, you don't want the cancer patients to get covid, because they are likely to be vulnerable because of the cancer. That creates some practical problems for how you use health units. Many people were apprehensive about going to hospitals over the summer, because they feared infection.

And all the symptomatically ill people won't be working, so we will be missing quite a lot of teachers and doctors and nurses and so on.

And there will be lots of problems with practical issues like burying all the bodies.

The airports still wouldn't be able to function, because people wouldn't want to come here on work and holiday. Hard to see how restaurants and other businesses would keep going, if many of their staff and customers were ill or worse, and many others feared getting infected.

So "just getting" covid would be really bad for business and so on.

There is therefore a very good business argument for keeping case numbers as low as possible.

Oh and I have lung disease, so I have never smoked , and I actively avoid smoky environments x

The parts of the economy which are at greatest risk at present are the ones which are simply moving money around - coffee shops, eating out are mainly moving cash from the better-off to the minimum waged. Could also be described as monetising social interaction

These industries are not for the purpose of distribution of wealth between workers, although it does keep people in work. I agree that it serves the purpose of commoditising social life. But ultimately minimum wage workers do not benefit from being kept in work, but shareholders and bosses on over 100 times minimum wage salaries do benefit from this "moving money around"

Could we simply manage without a lot of these jobs, but pay much higher benefits and/or re-employ the people in useful work, that actually produces something, or improves the quality of life in general

I agree that some jobs have greater societal value. They create greater welfare to society. But these jobs are badly paid too. Clapping for carers made steam escape from my ears. The working classes are being disproportionately expected to pay with both their lives and their health. Those furloughed workers on mid range salaries would not exchange their financial anxieties with my realities! so I cant see recently redundant male office managers quing up to wipe bums on the front line, even if I offer to clap for them.

But to say I am not cut out for it is no excuse at all. If excepting minimum waged work as carer keeps a roof over your head and feeds your DC, what excuse do you have not to take this work? because I can assure you that we as a society and as selfish, competitive, greedy individuals are indeed not cut out for this. I work in social work and have done on and off for 30 years and I can assure you I am not cut out for it either. But I'm not too proud to work in this area just because our society sees so little value in it, that all care workers are so poorly rewarded because its seen as jobs for "others" I would go further and say the the root cause of all abuse in care is because of the devaluation of those that care.

@RegularHumanBartender

If they closed the pubs and bars we may not need a national lockdown - that would be my preference

These are people's JOBS. Their livelihoods.

I really sympathise with the hospitality industry. Both my parents and also my grandparents worked at various times in hospitality/ provisioning and at times so have I.

The appeal is that you would "always have a job as a good cook" and so on. It's very saddening to see what is happening.

But we may need to look at thoughtful, maybe temporary, redeployment of some of these people, in a pandemic, if pubs and restaurants do end up being further limited or closed because this is how infection is being spread. These workers are people with real and transferable skills.

Our lives aren’t going back to how they were before. The state are enjoying the control to much. Make the most of what little freedom you have now as this is just the start, things are going to get a lot worse.