'We won't be back to 2019 for five years'

[RainbowParadise]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54661843

Has anyone else seen this? I feel completely on the edge after reading this, people surely will not comply with this shit show indefinitely?

@RainbowParadise

I agree the thought of this going on for another five years is pretty unimaginable. I remain optimistic that human scientific ingenuity will ensure that this is not the case.

I don’t believe for one minute that immunity wanes. Antibodies do but T cell immunity won’t. Not to the extent the prophets of doom are saying

I don’t want to live like this for another few years. Life isn’t worth living for many.

I think we should have treated it as a flu pandemic and just muddled through quicker.

Who wants to socially fucking distance for five years?!

5 years, or 5 winters?

You might get a trade off of more normal summers but masks and distancing in winter if we don't get a vaccine. It's not going to be like this all the time.

I wish I hadn’t read that.
I feel in utter panic for the future, if this is it for the next 5 years, what is the point. Why if it says levels would be down to similar to the flu, would we need to wear masks and social distance for decades?!! This doesn’t make sense at all, I’m feeling very frightened for my toddlers future.

Please try not to panic

Don't torture yourself reading/watching too much news and stuff here.

I understand how hard it can be - I have a few problems and am a shielder etc but for my own sanity I have been "tuning out" everything but headlines on what the new rules are I need to follow. No scare stories from the DM, no talking heads speculating and arguing endlessly. I don't usually read threads like this either

The internet can be a great source of support but I remember life before it and we didn't get force-fed news 24/7 - it was much less stressful in
many ways but we can take the good from the web and ignore the bad.

You may find the following article helpful:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

"News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol)"

Practice meditation and anything else that calms you down. Try to get absorbed in some new hobby and find like-minded people on the Internet. This is not flippant advice - you need to reduce your stress levels as much as you can instead of feeding them.

I wish you well

@annabel85

5 years, or 5 winters?

You might get a trade off of more normal summers but masks and distancing in winter if we don't get a vaccine. It's not going to be like this all the time.

@annabel85 can I just ask though, genuinely, and I don't mean this in a snarky way- what do you think people who are losing their jobs should do right now? Where does the money come from to support everyone? Im not being goady it's just there doesn't ever seem to be many answers given to this.

“Curbing the liberty and essential freedoms of large swaths of the population, many of whom will suffer long-term consequences, is inhumane. Fear and isolation are killers in themselves.

“We are all used to balancing decisions about quality of life against quantity of life in what we do every day; we do it even when we decide to cross the road. The government has taken that out of our hands, saying that quantity of life is the absolute goal and quality of life must be destroyed to achieve it.”

That's a quote from the guardian article that I linked earlier. I don't know, is there no argument for this?

@RainbowParadise

No agenda. But 5 years, really?

No, not really.

I think it is important to remember that this is a time of huge disruptive uncertainty, and people respond to huge uncertainty in different ways. Some people find it comforting in some ways to predict a bleak future and not get their hopes up. That doesn't mean they're more likely to be right, just because they've got 'Prof' in front of their name and they're quoted in a news article.

The best we can do is predict the future based on a) what we know about this virus and this situation, and b) what we know about how people have coped with pandemics and infectious disease in the past. (And still do, in lots of parts of the world).

So a) - well, we know more about how to control this disease than we did in the spring. Unlike with previous pandemics, we know that treatments and vaccines and better methods like mass rapid testing are likely to be approaching very fast. Yes it's possible none of these will work, but that's not the most likely outcome. A vaccine which marginally improves the rate at which people end up in hospital but doesn't do anything more and doesn't reduce transmission just won't get authorised for use in the first place.

b) - the only previous pandemics which took us years and years to return to anything like normal life were the ones that wiped out massive proportions of the population, like the Black Death. Humans have lived alongside dangerous infectious diseases that made this one look like the sniffles, and carried on gathering in crowds, hugging each other, having sex, having children, visiting family and going to work. Sometimes people put up with very restrictive measures, either imposed by governments or chosen by themselves, but those did not last five years. We could as a society have put 'normal life' on hold indefinitely. We didn't, because humans are social animals and we need that socialising.

It will take a while to roll out vaccines, no vaccine or treatment will work on absolutely everyone, the virus won't have gone away by this time next year, yes, yes. But if we're in a situation this time next year where all the eligible vulnerable people have been vaccinated, rates of the virus are really low, and treatments are improved, and we've turned the virus into basically seasonal flu - well, people are welcome to suggest that we should carry on with hugely restrictive impacts to society anyway, but realistically that is just not going to happen.

Honestly I think doom-mongering like this (the headline more than the article, although the article/quotes doesn't help) is hugely irresponsible. Right now people are complying with highly restrictive measures because they know it's a short term thing. If you say "life won't go back to normal for five years, sadly", people won't think "oh no, I won't get to hug Granny for five years". They'll think "well fuck it then, I'm not waiting that long, I'm hugging Granny now." And we could really REALLY do with people hanging on for another few months, because even if the roomiest among us think vaccines probably won't do much ("sadly", "I'm afraid", "sorry"), the rest of us would rather not put the Grannies of the nation in jeopardy until we find out.

@RainbowParadise

If we're locking down for a month then the furlough scheme needs to be extended for a month. Areas that have gone into tier 3 have been given money to protect jobs and income.

I mean, stuff like this:

"For most people," says Prof Woolhouse, "I suspect life has changed to some degree forever, I don't think there is a going back.
"There is a 'new normal'."
In his optimistic view, that means there's sufficient immunity to make transmission rates low, so there is no "crisis", but we would still need to keep wearing face coverings, be extra careful with hand hygiene and socially distance.
"And we stay used to that for years or decades until it really does settle down. The second wave is absolutely not the end of it."

That isn't cool, rational scientific truth. Ten minutes spent thinking about medical history, or human psychology would highlight about fifteen ways that's very wrong. That's the modern equivalent of walking about the plague-ridden streets shouting "God has punished us! The end is nigh!"

[quote BlueBlancmange]@lazyfecker But still, all the below :O

-But we won't be 'back to 2019' for five years," he predicts
-Some scientists believe that to manage the virus, our way of life may need to change forever
-This will settle down over decades
-The problem is what happens over those decades. I don't see a route that isn't painful in one way or another."
-A third wave is certainly possible
-And if neither the second nor the third waves are anything like big enough to induce herd immunity, and we don't have a vaccine, then a fourth wave is possible
-I don't think it will settle down at all in the next 18 months.
-And he warns that some of the people most vulnerable to Covid, such as the elderly, might get the least protection from a vaccine.
-But he warns that going back to normality will require a vaccine that both stops people getting sick and prevents them spreading the virus. That, he says, will take five years.
-There is a 'new normal
-In his optimistic(????) view, that means there's sufficient immunity to make transmission rates low, so there is no "crisis", but we would still need to keep wearing face coverings, be extra careful with hand hygiene and socially distance.[/quote]
It could make depressing reading but the scientists don't agree amongst themselves and a lot of them have revised the things they have said before including the WHO and the article is scattered with "could" and "possibly" Which is a very convenient way to basically say anything and not be wrong. A much beloved tactic of the newspapers especially the DM.

@GoldenOmber I think yours is actually the most sensible and helpful post on this thread and I'm actually really grateful you posted this as I feel a bit more hopeful from it!

You've summed it up far more articulately than me- I was actually surprised to read such a shitty article on the BBC- as you say, being so doom and gloom really does increase the chances of people thinking fuck it!

I've tried to explain time and again I am not against lockdown or measures to restrict but the usual suspects on here always want to jump on and make out that there's an agenda. I just don't believe the balance is right if for years to come, people could be living such a socially restrictive life. For all @annabel85 likes to say, the government are very well aware that people in the UK will not comply with such an extreme level of restrictions. They are aware of this so for all of our sakes let's hope that this next lockdown manages to get rates down and they do something to improve track and trace etc in the meantime.

@goldenomber

It seems to me the article has deliberately been written to present a very gloomy outlook. I suspect the journalist trawled around for predictions from a variety of experts and then just used the two most pessimistic ones and a slightly more optimistic one. But as you say this type of thing is like to make people less likely to comply with restrictions, so what do you think the motive is for publishing it just before we are probably going to enter another national lockdown?

[quote annabel85]@RainbowParadise

If we're locking down for a month then the furlough scheme needs to be extended for a month. Areas that have gone into tier 3 have been given money to protect jobs and income.[/quote]
But the more lockdowns that happen, the more jobs won't exist at the end of it, where does the money come from for furlough?

@GoldenOmber

I mean, stuff like this:

"For most people," says Prof Woolhouse, "I suspect life has changed to some degree forever, I don't think there is a going back.
"There is a 'new normal'."
In his optimistic view, that means there's sufficient immunity to make transmission rates low, so there is no "crisis", but we would still need to keep wearing face coverings, be extra careful with hand hygiene and socially distance.
"And we stay used to that for years or decades until it really does settle down. The second wave is absolutely not the end of it."

That isn't cool, rational scientific truth. Ten minutes spent thinking about medical history, or human psychology would highlight about fifteen ways that's very wrong. That's the modern equivalent of walking about the plague-ridden streets shouting "God has punished us! The end is nigh!"

Yes, great post.

I don't think there's a motive beyond clicks (and possibly whatever the journalist/editor was feeling at the time), really.

@lazyfecker yes I agree as per my above post. But I am curious what the motive for publishing it might be.

[quote BlueBlancmange]@goldenomber

It seems to me the article has deliberately been written to present a very gloomy outlook. I suspect the journalist trawled around for predictions from a variety of experts and then just used the two most pessimistic ones and a slightly more optimistic one. But as you say this type of thing is like to make people less likely to comply with restrictions, so what do you think the motive is for publishing it just before we are probably going to enter another national lockdown?[/quote]
Personally I think journalists do not see that they have any responsibility for what happens following their articles - look at the Daily Mail they are always trying to incite trouble -their job is to sell papers and get clicks the aftermath is not something they concern themselves with

@GoldenOmber

I mean, stuff like this:

"For most people," says Prof Woolhouse, "I suspect life has changed to some degree forever, I don't think there is a going back.
"There is a 'new normal'."
In his optimistic view, that means there's sufficient immunity to make transmission rates low, so there is no "crisis", but we would still need to keep wearing face coverings, be extra careful with hand hygiene and socially distance.
"And we stay used to that for years or decades until it really does settle down. The second wave is absolutely not the end of it."

That isn't cool, rational scientific truth. Ten minutes spent thinking about medical history, or human psychology would highlight about fifteen ways that's very wrong. That's the modern equivalent of walking about the plague-ridden streets shouting "God has punished us! The end is nigh!"

Totally agree.

People see the word 'scientist' - which has a very broad definition - and assume the 'scientist' in question is entirely rational, logical and free of bias. But he/she is not. Scientists are people just like the rest of us, with their own fears, emotions and prejudices. No pandemic - including those which happened in eras when there was no medical knowledge to speak of - lasted 'decades'.

This is scare mongering. The fact that it's coming from a 'scientist' doesn't make it any less so.

It was newspapers like the Daily Mail that helped to cause the panic over toilet rolls and panic buying in general. They were taking photos of empty shelves not even connected with panic buying to create panic buying!

It's really poor isn't it- I think the days of having respect for the standard of journalism at the BBC are long gone. It's very irresponsible reporting. The timing is particularly surprising though.

I was actually surprised to read such a shitty article on the BBC- as you say, being so doom and gloom really does increase the chances of people thinking fuck it!

The BBC quality has gone down drastically it is getting more "tabloids" I find.

The Guardian and the BBC are in competition for who can be the gloomiest. I think The Guardian just about edges it, but it's a close-run thing.

Not read the full thread as I assume full of confirmation bias I don't need right now. And to state the point that life isn't a buddle of fun at the moment, but back to the point 'life isn't worth living anymore.'

We are living in a good time. If you look back through history and how hard life was, imagine if the human race thought like that. We would not be here.

Imagine if nations where famine, disease and war is the norm and they thought like that. Whole nations would not be here.

There is no doubt this is a shit show, and some people are really impacted terribly but you must look for joy in other ways if you can, or look to weather this. Simplify your wants.

Honestly I think doom-mongering like this (the headline more than the article, although the article/quotes doesn't help) is hugely irresponsible

I couldn't agree more but that's the media for you, with most of them competing for the most lurid headline and the BBC as bad as the rest

The only tiny bit of your excellent post I'd take issue with is the assertion that a marginally effective vaccine wouldn't get authorised. Given the profits which stand to be made it would be very tempting to inflate claims of efficacy with just enough caveats to wriggle out of any responsibility later - and who in the entire cabinet would have the knowledge or even the wit to argue?

As ever it's wise to follow the money, and remember what it can lead to

@GoldenOmber

I mean, stuff like this:

"For most people," says Prof Woolhouse, "I suspect life has changed to some degree forever, I don't think there is a going back.
"There is a 'new normal'."
In his optimistic view, that means there's sufficient immunity to make transmission rates low, so there is no "crisis", but we would still need to keep wearing face coverings, be extra careful with hand hygiene and socially distance.
"And we stay used to that for years or decades until it really does settle down. The second wave is absolutely not the end of it."

That isn't cool, rational scientific truth. Ten minutes spent thinking about medical history, or human psychology would highlight about fifteen ways that's very wrong. That's the modern equivalent of walking about the plague-ridden streets shouting "God has punished us! The end is nigh!"

I agree

I listed all the negative quotes I could see in the article in a previous post. I hope the way I did it doesn't make it look like I am trying to promote the views as I didn't add context in that particular post, I just basically copied and pasted.

I definitely find the article irresponsible and deliberately written with an extremely negative slant. It's also got a nastiness to it the way it is headed with a photo of smiley people socialising just to hammer home what we are supposed to think we will not experience again for decades to come, if ever.