[quote Watermelon999]@TheDailyCarbuncle
While I can see your point of view, and do agree with much of what you say, what would you suggest we do differently to the current guidelines/rules?
I’m currently following them, mainly to try and slow the rate of increase to prevent excessive hospitalisations, therefore allowing essential non covid medical appointments/procedures to continue. These will be at risk in my area if current rates continue, meaning things like cancer treatment and surgery could be stopped again. Some have only just got back to normal service. Obviously we don’t want this to happen.
It appears many aren’t following the rules for various reasons, but it definitely appears cases are rising and crucially hospitalisations are rising, including itu/critical care.
So if we decide not to follow the rules, what do we do instead? And how do we manage the hospitalisations? Will it just be survival of the fittest?
I’m genuinely interested in what people’s views are on this, especially those who think we should just ignore the rules. Are you just hoping that it won’t be you who is badly affected?[/quote]
An ideal alternative would be to have a healthcare system and a disaster plan that has actual capacity to deal with situations like this. It really surprises me that people aren't in a rage about the fact that they have to lose their livelihoods and their contact with other people to 'protect' the NHS, a service that is supposed to be there to protect them. What if there had been a nuclear meltdown? Or a war? Would people accept that there's no medical care and just die quietly? Expecting there to be a contingency, for government to say 'there's a health threat, but we can deal with it,' isn't actually beyond reasonable.
However, as we don't seem to have any capacity to deal with a large-scale threat, the next thing would be to look properly at the actual data and look critically at the actual benefit (or otherwise) of 'protecting the NHS.' It's beyond bonkers to protect the NHS by making people sicker and more depressed, by tanking the economy such that you reduce revenue and increase poverty and the resulting effects of job losses.
The virus, unfortunately, exists. Pretending that you can somehow 'beat' it and that therefore people must suffer is nuts. Having a situation with thousands of job losses, where children have been kept at home for months with little to no outside contact, where whole industries are collapsing, is not a solution. It's political pandering from politicians who would rather tank the economy and destroy people's lives than say 'there is a hard limit to what we can do in this situation.' I am genuinely shocked that people not only accept being told they can't see their own families, that they must leave elderly people isolated, lonely and struggling, they demand it. Such is the level of tunnel-vision and lack of understanding about what you can really do in this situation.
As for the whole world falling apart if the virus 'rips' through the population - 11 million people die every year from the infections that 'rip' through every population everywhere. Yet if you asked the entirety of mumsnet most people won't know anyone who's died from infection, they won't even be aware it's a problem. The vast, vast majority (as in close to 100%) of people who have covid recover. This is not a major existential threat and acting like it is, to the extent that you amplify the effect of a virus beyond all measuring by artificially introducing suffering and chaos via restrictions and lockdowns, is so far from a solution, so the opposite of a positive response, it really baffles me how this is not obvious to people.