I'm so angry...

[MaryShelley1818]

We are in an area with local restrictions so high transmission rates in the North East of England.

Someone I know had her 40th at the weekend and photos on FB of her having a party in a pub, cake presents, her and kids, her parents, her sister who works at a local University in a very high position, and about 4-5 friends. No Social Distancing, drinking, cuddling, shots, photos.
How are people just carrying on as normal??!! How can you be so bloody thick as to post all the photos on FB. Am I missing something?? I'm furious.

We've followed every single rule but seems I'm in the minority and the longer people just do whatever they want for, the longer I'll have to go without seeing my friends and family.

[quote Watermelon999]@TheDailyCarbuncle

“Selling the notion that that one threat can be controlled by destroying other areas of life makes such little sense that I'm really baffled by people's acceptance of it. “

It’s not the virus that can be controlled, it is the rate of hospitalisation. You do tend to hastily gloss over this point. Things were reopened gradually over the summer and although the rate of infection increased, hospitalisations didn’t, so more was reopened. It is only now that measures need to be taken. I’m sure no one is intentionally “destroying other areas of life” but what other options are there? Again you hastily gloss over this point.

“The virus causes a certain amount of suffering, but the aim seems to be to extend that suffering to absolutely everyone. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you get covid or not, you will definitely suffer - you will lose your job, relatives will die (of many different causes) before you can see them, your mental health will suffer, industries you rely on will collapse.”

There is a certain amount of sensationalism here. Yes some people will be adversely affected either directly or indirectly. Yes some will be hit harder financially or psychologically than others. That’s life, it isn’t fair. It won’t apply to everyone.

In order to maintain as many of the essential services that these “harder hit” people need it’s essential to keep hospitalisations under control. This will free up the supplementary services, like mental health teams etc who were all redeployed last time to the wards. It’s a balancing act between this and keeping the economy ticking over.[/quote]
This genuinely makes zero sense to me. If the rate of hospitalisation is the deciding factor, why were schools closed in June, when hospital admissions and deaths were extremely low?

You say Yes some people will be adversely affected either directly or indirectly. Yes some will be hit harder financially or psychologically than others. That’s life, it isn’t fair. It won’t apply to everyone.

For one thing I think you're extraordinarily naive to think some people will be adversely affected - every single person will be affected and the smug gits who think 'I'm fine' will have a very very harsh bump down to earth when they find they very much are not fine. What I question is why this 'suck it up, you're going to suffer' attitude is fine to have in relation to lockdown - a political choice that can be reversed at any time - but not fine in relation to the virus - a natural event that is no one's fault. Why not say 'you might suffer from the virus, tough luck?'

The overwhelming hospitals thing is touted as an excuse all the time, which again raises the question as to why lives have to be ruined for fear of a situation that hasn't happened and may never happen? Even when covid had been spreading completely uncontrolled, for three months or more, with zero measures, zero social distancing, zero knowledge, the hospitals were not overwhelmed. They struggled in places, yes, but the nightingale hospitals were barely used.

Hospitals struggle during winter every year. No one gives a fuck. The usual source of struggle is the flu, which this year is killing pretty much nobody. So are the hospitals going to be overwhelmed? Are we running scared, destroying livelihoods and killing people for a scenario that will never happen?

[quote Watermelon999]@TheDailyCarbuncle

“I mean more than just shielded people. There are many people out there on MN and people I know personally, who have got the idea that it is possible for them to avoid covid indefinitely and that nothing should go back to normal, regardless of infection rates, until there's a vaccine and all risk is gone.”

I’m not sure I know any of those.

I know of people who are more careful now, only doing essential shopping, limiting their socialising etc but none expecting “special treatment “ or protection or benefits etc.

Many of these are retired, still going about their daily lives, but more carefully. The others are people like me, still working, but limiting social activities to minimise the risk of having to isolate as a family, to keep the kids in school. It’s not ideal, but not the end of the world.

What sort of people do you mean?[/quote]
Have you read any other threads on MN?

Surely you're aware of the swathes of people, on MN and elsewhere, who were entirely against schools reopening? Who believed that teachers were being sacrificed?

It's madness.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

“This genuinely makes zero sense to me. If the rate of hospitalisation is the deciding factor, why were schools closed in June, when hospital admissions and deaths were extremely low? “

Schools reopened in June if you remember. It wasn’t to all year groups, although some schools did manage this around here. Hospital admissions and deaths were only low because of lockdown. As an aside, I did think that schools should have reopened fully (to those who wanted to) in June/July. It would have been an ideal time when hospitals are generally less busy in the summer.

“For one thing I think you're extraordinarily naive to think some people will be adversely affected - every single person will be affected and the smug gits who think 'I'm fine' will have a very very harsh bump down to earth when they find they very much are not fine.”

Feeling “adversely affected” depends on your state of mind and situation. Yes we will all miss out on things we want to do, holidays etc and seeing family., so yes in that sense we are all affected. But this pales into insignificance compared to how some others have suffered. I don’t feel I’ve been massively adversely affected. We have our family, jobs and health. I feel grateful, not smug. I can forego trips to the pub and a holiday, and seeing family as often until a time when it’s deemed safer, like it was in the summer. So no, not everyone will be adversely affected, but some will be massively.

“What I question is why this 'suck it up, you're going to suffer' attitude is fine to have in relation to lockdown - a political choice that can be reversed at any time - but not fine in relation to the virus - a natural event that is no one's fault. Why not say 'you might suffer from the virus, tough luck?”

Because it has a direct affect on hospital admissions, and if these get too high other services are stopped.

“The overwhelming hospitals thing is touted as an excuse all the time, which again raises the question as to why lives have to be ruined for fear of a situation that hasn't happened and may never happen? Even when covid had been spreading completely uncontrolled, for three months or more, with zero measures, zero social distancing, zero knowledge, the hospitals were not overwhelmed. They struggled in places, yes, but the nightingale hospitals were barely used.”

Have you stopped to think this may be true? Do you actually work in a hospital? We were redeployed to the wards and it was a scary time. Without lockdown we would have been overwhelmed, it came very close. You do realise that to se the nightingale hospitals they need to send staff from the nhs hospitals? So essentially the other services will still be stopped.

“Hospitals struggle during winter every year. No one gives a fuck. The usual source of struggle is the flu, which this year is killing pretty much nobody. So are the hospitals going to be overwhelmed? Are we running scared, destroying livelihoods and killing people for a scenario that will never happen?”

Yes, we are on full capacity now already. It happens every winter without covid. This is with a flu vaccine given to the vulnerable. You have answered your own question here.

[quote Watermelon999]@TheDailyCarbuncle

“This genuinely makes zero sense to me. If the rate of hospitalisation is the deciding factor, why were schools closed in June, when hospital admissions and deaths were extremely low? “

Schools reopened in June if you remember. It wasn’t to all year groups, although some schools did manage this around here. Hospital admissions and deaths were only low because of lockdown. As an aside, I did think that schools should have reopened fully (to those who wanted to) in June/July. It would have been an ideal time when hospitals are generally less busy in the summer.

“For one thing I think you're extraordinarily naive to think some people will be adversely affected - every single person will be affected and the smug gits who think 'I'm fine' will have a very very harsh bump down to earth when they find they very much are not fine.”

Feeling “adversely affected” depends on your state of mind and situation. Yes we will all miss out on things we want to do, holidays etc and seeing family., so yes in that sense we are all affected. But this pales into insignificance compared to how some others have suffered. I don’t feel I’ve been massively adversely affected. We have our family, jobs and health. I feel grateful, not smug. I can forego trips to the pub and a holiday, and seeing family as often until a time when it’s deemed safer, like it was in the summer. So no, not everyone will be adversely affected, but some will be massively.

“What I question is why this 'suck it up, you're going to suffer' attitude is fine to have in relation to lockdown - a political choice that can be reversed at any time - but not fine in relation to the virus - a natural event that is no one's fault. Why not say 'you might suffer from the virus, tough luck?”

Because it has a direct affect on hospital admissions, and if these get too high other services are stopped.

“The overwhelming hospitals thing is touted as an excuse all the time, which again raises the question as to why lives have to be ruined for fear of a situation that hasn't happened and may never happen? Even when covid had been spreading completely uncontrolled, for three months or more, with zero measures, zero social distancing, zero knowledge, the hospitals were not overwhelmed. They struggled in places, yes, but the nightingale hospitals were barely used.”

Have you stopped to think this may be true? Do you actually work in a hospital? We were redeployed to the wards and it was a scary time. Without lockdown we would have been overwhelmed, it came very close. You do realise that to se the nightingale hospitals they need to send staff from the nhs hospitals? So essentially the other services will still be stopped.

“Hospitals struggle during winter every year. No one gives a fuck. The usual source of struggle is the flu, which this year is killing pretty much nobody. So are the hospitals going to be overwhelmed? Are we running scared, destroying livelihoods and killing people for a scenario that will never happen?”

Yes, we are on full capacity now already. It happens every winter without covid. This is with a flu vaccine given to the vulnerable. You have answered your own question here.[/quote]
Oh my god, when I say 'adversely affected' do you seriously think I'm talking about missing out on holidays?

Do you really not understand the massive catastrophic effect of collapsing entire industries?

“Oh my god, when I say 'adversely affected' do you seriously think I'm talking about missing out on holidays?

Do you really not understand the massive catastrophic effect of collapsing entire industries?”

More sensationalism and negativity again with very little substance to actually what you’d do differently.....it’s easy to argue against what’s happening, but a bit harder to come up with viable alternatives.

@Watermelon999

“Oh my god, when I say 'adversely affected' do you seriously think I'm talking about missing out on holidays?

Do you really not understand the massive catastrophic effect of collapsing entire industries?”

More sensationalism and negativity again with very little substance to actually what you’d do differently.....it’s easy to argue against what’s happening, but a bit harder to come up with viable alternatives.

It's funny that you say I'm sensationalist and negative, given that lockdown and restrictions are based entirely on sensationalist and negative predictions about the virus, with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

It is not sensationalist to say that the tourism, hospitality and events industries have been decimated, that's just a fact. It's not sensationalism to say the economy is on course for the biggest recession since WW2, that's a fact. It's not sensationalist to say that thousands have already lost their jobs and thousands more will lose theirs and that many businesses have already collapsed or are about to collapse. It's not sensationalist to say that collapsed industries, unemployment and recession leads to lower tax revenue, less money for healthcare and education and poorer outcomes for every person in the country.

A viable alternative is to accept that the virus is here and live with it, stop preventing people from working and seeing their own families. Of course you're going to spout sensationalism and negativity about deaths from the virus, no healthcare etc so there's no resolving that I suppose.

“lockdown and restrictions are based entirely on sensationalist and negative predictions about the virus, with absolutely no evidence to back them up.”

I think the people starting to fill the hospitals are evidence enough, hopefully death rates will be lower now they’ve found more effective treatments.

“It is not sensationalist to say that the tourism, hospitality and events industries have been decimated, that's just a fact. It's not sensationalism to say the economy is on course for the biggest recession since WW2, that's a fact. It's not sensationalist to say that thousands have already lost their jobs and thousands more will lose theirs and that many businesses have already collapsed or are about to collapse. It's not sensationalist to say that collapsed industries, unemployment and recession leads to lower tax revenue, less money for healthcare and education and poorer outcomes for every person in the country.”

Yes these are all facts, and agree it is pretty depressing, but not all industries are failing, some are doing ok. We will be paying for this for years though, like many other countries. It is a balancing act economy vs health, and we need to be sensible so the economy can win out.

“A viable alternative is to accept that the virus is here and live with it, stop preventing people from working and seeing their own families.”

I think this needs to be the long term aim, but in order to do that we need a fully functioning test and trace, proper support for those who need to isolate and also people need to learn to make lifestyle changes reduce/minimise situations with a high risk of spread. If people had been more sensible over the summer we could have more things open now, but some people still don’t get it. If

@Watermelon999

“lockdown and restrictions are based entirely on sensationalist and negative predictions about the virus, with absolutely no evidence to back them up.”

I think the people starting to fill the hospitals are evidence enough, hopefully death rates will be lower now they’ve found more effective treatments.

“It is not sensationalist to say that the tourism, hospitality and events industries have been decimated, that's just a fact. It's not sensationalism to say the economy is on course for the biggest recession since WW2, that's a fact. It's not sensationalist to say that thousands have already lost their jobs and thousands more will lose theirs and that many businesses have already collapsed or are about to collapse. It's not sensationalist to say that collapsed industries, unemployment and recession leads to lower tax revenue, less money for healthcare and education and poorer outcomes for every person in the country.”

Yes these are all facts, and agree it is pretty depressing, but not all industries are failing, some are doing ok. We will be paying for this for years though, like many other countries. It is a balancing act economy vs health, and we need to be sensible so the economy can win out.

“A viable alternative is to accept that the virus is here and live with it, stop preventing people from working and seeing their own families.”

I think this needs to be the long term aim, but in order to do that we need a fully functioning test and trace, proper support for those who need to isolate and also people need to learn to make lifestyle changes reduce/minimise situations with a high risk of spread. If people had been more sensible over the summer we could have more things open now, but some people still don’t get it. If

'If people had been more sensible over the summer we could have more things open now, but some people still don’t get it.'

Again, this doesn't make sense to me. The government shut down businesses and schools, people had no choice to comply with that. The government also prevented people from having human contact and to a large extent people complied with that, even if it meant elderly parents and people with mental health issues suffered. The government mandated masks, there's high compliance with that in a lot of places. Businesses closed, jobs were lost, people really really struggled. Now the plan is to make human contact illegal again. How much are people supposed to tolerate? I ask that as a genuine question.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/hospitals-in-north-of-england-to-run-out-of-covid-beds-within-a-week

@TheDailyCarbuncle

“ Again, this doesn't make sense to me. The government shut down businesses and schools, people had no choice to comply with that. The government also prevented people from having human contact and to a large extent people complied with that, even if it meant elderly parents and people with mental health issues suffered. The government mandated masks, there's high compliance with that in a lot of places. Businesses closed, jobs were lost, people really really struggled. Now the plan is to make human contact illegal again. How much are people supposed to tolerate? I ask that as a genuine question.”

I’m not sure what part of my post doesn’t make sense??

The government shut down schools and businesses as part of lockdown and yes we all complied. This was in order to slow the spread of the virus to not overrun the nhs.

Lockdown worked as it did what it was supposed to do. It wasn’t ever going to make it go away.

The government then started reopening things slowly with extra measures in place (eg distancing and masks) to allow businesses to trade again to try and kickstart the economy.

This seemed to be going well over the summer, and despite a few people breaking the rules (raves, protests, crowded beaches etc) the virus stayed under control, with minimal admissions.

People were allowed to see and stay with family and single people were allowed to bubble up. We were all supposed to be still distancing though (except for the bubble). This advice never stopped, but many people stopped doing it.

So, if rates had continued to be steady, they would have continued with their plans to reopen more and more things including sports events, arts etc.

But because rates have risen again and hospitals are overwhelmed, they need to consider another lockdown to slow the rise in cases.

I’m genuinely not sure what you mean by making human contact the legal again? It isn’t illegal now, except in certain areas, and hasn’t been all over the summer??

How much are people supposed to tolerate? Well we make our own decisions based on the guidelines, care is and always has been allowed for people who are vulnerable or who have poor mental health. Unfortunately there is no quick fix, and we may need to get used to regular lockdowns until we can learn the best way of managing to live our lives with the virus while minimising excess hospitalisations.

#Illegal again

It is not the case that care is and has always been allowed for people who are vulnerable - people in care homes were denied contact from their families (and many still are) and many died as a result. Equally many other people with mental health issues have deteriorated due to lack of regular contact with other people.

It's likely that from Wednesday mixing of households will be banned again.

Anyway, we're going around in circles and we're very unlikely to agree. I hope you remember this conversation next year when the shit is really hitting the fan and you think 'that Carbuncle, she didn't know a fucking thing' rather than 'shit, she was right, we're all fucked.' I mean that genuinely. I hope I'm totally wrong. I know I'm not but hey ho.

I completely agree with you @TheDailyCarbuncle. People really have swallowed the rubbish fed by the government if they think it’s ordinary people breaking the rules which has led to this mess

[quote Msmcc1212]www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/hospitals-in-north-of-england-to-run-out-of-covid-beds-within-a-week[/quote]
I genuinely find this story bizarre, unless we are a freak area in the north east thats not like this. My sister says covid admissions are stil fairly low, and we are kind of right at the centre of the local restrictions in the NE so you would expect the hospital she works in would be totally swamped! Mind, last time around at the peak..she was very busy, but it wasn't overflowing like made out to be in the press again.

Maybe our immediate area is just extremely lucky compared to the others, though I wuld love to have any theories for why that would be, especially when it seems half my contacts are getting positive tests over the past couple of months!

I don't doubt covid is adding to the usual strain on the NHS. But I do think it seems to be exaggerated in the press, mind, I only know of one hospital so it IS possible that both times, that hospital was just hugely lucky.

Actually the immediate area thing wouldn't really stand up, as if the ones around us were swamped, patients from further out would be directed to her hospital.

Can only speak for our hospital (NW) but it’s nearly at lockdown levels now.

Don’t forget the only reason hospitals weren’t overrun in March/April was because of lockdown and the cancellation of all other appointments and services, elective surgery etc. Less trauma from car accidents, sports etc.

We really don’t want to go back to that again...