Should we submit to the lockdown or fight back?

[pontypridd]

Just this.

I feel scared writing it. I know I'll be flamed.

But how long can people live like this for? I've lost so many family over the years - my mum too when I was young. We all get sick and die.

We can't lock up the whole world because of Covid. Are we just all going to submit? Or do we, should we fight for our freedom?

@borntohula

There are some real idiots on this thread. It's not about crying because we can't go to the fucking pub, it's about the fact that we're out of work for who knows how long this time.

yep, people think because their only changes in life are" not going to costa" it applies to everyone. It's ridiculous. I suspect when the shit hits the fan in the not too distant future with the economy collapsing as they sit logged into social media all day in tracksuits with hashtags " covidiots" they will soon do a U turn in their apparent covid philosophies

@Dan1980 your missing large pieces of the puzzle there though.

Even if we humanely euthanised everyone over the age of 80 (which is preferable to a death from covid imho) we’d still have a huge problem with not enough health service to go round, you would have to start much younger (by around thirty years younger) and even then we would lose billions in the economy from sickness absences from people who would be absolutely fine eventually.

Then you have to consider the pressure that those with relatively mild cases still put pressure on the health service and this increases everyone’s mortality risk. That’s the point it becomes incredibly unlucky to get run over, have an accident, develop appendicitis or sepsis, have a heart attack or stroke, premature birth etc. because medics are already at their limit. That’s before we even start on chronic illness.

It’s just not as simple as you’re making out.

[quote Cornettoninja]@Dan1980 your missing large pieces of the puzzle there though.

Even if we humanely euthanised everyone over the age of 80 (which is preferable to a death from covid imho) we’d still have a huge problem with not enough health service to go round, you would have to start much younger (by around thirty years younger) and even then we would lose billions in the economy from sickness absences from people who would be absolutely fine eventually.

Then you have to consider the pressure that those with relatively mild cases still put pressure on the health service and this increases everyone’s mortality risk. That’s the point it becomes incredibly unlucky to get run over, have an accident, develop appendicitis or sepsis, have a heart attack or stroke, premature birth etc. because medics are already at their limit. That’s before we even start on chronic illness.

It’s just not as simple as you’re making out.[/quote]
Why would you have to " humanely euthanise " people over 80 when 95% even if they catch covid are fine?

Hospitals are overrun many winters with flu, there is nothing new there.. thousands of elderly people last year died of flu and pneumonia ( over 30,000)

i read most years about hospitals being overrun , it never happens but even if it did - why not build more of them which surely cant cost more than the billions wasted on lockdowns, track and trace failed apps etc

I'm not really sure how long people think they are going to live. In an ideal world everyone over 70 which was the old saying ( 3 score and 10) would have a private nurse for weekly health checks to prolong life longer than it normally would have been possible but this isn't an ideal utopia. The reality is we all have finite lives and death from covid comes above the life span from other diseases with an average of 82.. it's relevant because the disease in the vast majority of cases kills people near the end of their natural life. Anyone suggesting younger lives should be sacrificed to deal with this are the ones who are quite blinkered. It's like religion used as a crutch for death in some ways unable to accept their relatives mortality, death comes to every person and people focusing on covid above everything else seem unable to accept a 5% chance of death is relatively tiny to the risks from other diseases at that age.

leaving aside the age , using the stats for someone in their 80s, you wouldnt stay in your house knowing you are likely to be dead in 5-10 years ( 60%) A 1 in 20 chance of covid death is fairly low compared to a 60% chance of not seeing your 90th bday over 80 from other diseases and not only that but all age groups must stay in ignoring the 60% but focusing on the 5% which is likely to incorporate huge numbers that are on their last legs metaphorically? That isn't rational to me and many old people who want to enjoy their remaining limited years instead of watching someone singing kum by yah through the window

In humans, I'd have said that euthanasia is only humane if it is voluntary and consensual (because I do agree that the choice should be available and that too many people are forced to die barbaric, inhumane deaths because it is not available). So, killing off everyone over 80 is unlikely to be that humane because I somewhat doubt every person over 80 would consent to euthanasia...

It does actually happen every year

Hospitals are routinely on 'black alert' in the winter months ie there are no beds to admit into. We actually had to make up an extra alert level as red was not enough!

That means that non-emergency work is getting cancelled every winter eg hip replacements, heart bypass. Things where the person won't immediately die but they will suffer for longer. Also discharges are 'expedited' ie people sent home with barely adequate or inadequate care to free up beds.

Every winter we are doing stuff like that just to get by. Add COVID admissions into the mix and it will mean we have to stop even very serious stuff like cancer surgery. We are only just getting that back now. after it was all cancelled in the first wave.

Even if only 10% of over 75s infected die still 20% will be ill enough to require hospital admission. With current rates of infection that will be easily enough to push hospitals to cancel other work and for care to suffer for other patients.

You can say that more hospitals should have been built or staff trained in the past but they weren't because people preferred tax cuts so here we are.

Oh god unfortunate x post
Not euthanasia every year
Hospitals being overun I meant

I don’t want to euthanise anyone (!) I’m simply pointing out that your focus on >80’s and natural lifespan is irrelevant because the impact is much wider than that. It’s back to the small percentages translate to large numbers.

Yes people in the last of their natural years may not want to spend them like this, but then how many would voluntarily step up to a pretty horrific death without any kind of palliative care? No pain relief, no comfort from family, less staff able to attend them etc. There’s no option for sacrificial sentiments of the old over the young because even minimal use of resources will still be overwhelming.

We should have more hospitals and more staff but we don’t. I’m happy to debate long term societal and political goals on another thread but dealing with here and now and what is actually available this isn’t an option - nightingales and redeploying staff from other roles (and all the impacts of that - no NHS department is over staffed) is the best we’ve got right now. The virus isn’t going to wait for us to get ready.

I am against all mandatory covid 19 measures. However we are where we are. People will react as feels right for them. I cannot see much point in disobeying the law as that would bring me more trouble than gain. however lots of people have different ways they can express their views and I am sure they will do so. Luckily we still live in a relative free country and do not have to have the same views as others.

There will be no nurses and no hospitals if he economy doe snot continue. there will be no health service, no free schooling, no money to pay police or teachers - so the state is balancing all this out.

@user153675313578 let me be clear, I am not advocating euthanasia as a preventative. I believe that a ‘good’ death as far as is practicable is one of the most important things we can provide for people in society.

Covid is not a good death so when I see people arguing that these deaths are an acceptable cost to ensure the survival of other services/economy/education I think it’s right to point out that if this is the case then they should at least be arguing those most at risk should be offered a ‘good’ death rather than the inevitable suffering and loneliness of a covid death.

The idea is abhorrent when we have the means to suppress it but if someone doesn’t agree with suppression then at least acknowledge what kind of fate thousands of people are being abandoned to.

I realise the euthanasia comment was sarcasm so how would you answer this :

3 patients arrive at hospital all with identical age related risks of death if not treated quickly - lets say 50% for arguments sake. The three patients are aged 18, 40 and 80. Which would you prioritise or would you ignore age altogether?

We should stand up and say enough. Give us evidence based measures. Reasonable precautions. But don’t destroy the whole of society

@Dan1980 I’d prioritise them by most likely to be helped by treatment.

But if you mean by age then in ascending order. I’d want my child to be helped over me or my old parent.

[quote WouldBeGood]@Dan1980 I’d prioritise them by most likely to be helped by treatment.

But if you mean by age then in ascending order. I’d want my child to be helped over me or my old parent.[/quote]
I'd agree which is my point that although all lives matter whatever age, saving elderly relatives from a very small risk of covid death shouldnt come at the cost of younger lives lost or destroyed. 3 million women for eg have missed cancer screenings , it's about a sensible proportional response instead of this.

People talking about saving the NHS but with continual lockdowns there will be no NHS.. who is going to fund it?

@Dan1980 totally agree.

i read most years about hospitals being overrun , it never happens but even if it did - why not build more of them which surely cant cost more than the billions wasted on lockdowns, track and trace failed apps etc

Hospitals take YEARS to build. People are dying of Covid NOW.

So, please, invent a time machine, go back 20 years and tell them to start planning (so we don't have to scrabble around making it up on the hoof in a crisis - and getting it 90% wrong - like have been.

So, killing off everyone over 80 is unlikely to be that humane because I somewhat doubt every person over 80 would consent to euthanasia...

Exactly. My 87 year old father has just had a new aortic valve fitted which has given him a new lease of life, so I doubt he is ready to go just yet. I know of several people who have reached their 100s and are still in pretty good health. The average life span is just that, an average, and there are a lot of older people with very good quality of life - who are we to say that once you reach 80 you should be prepared to go?

It’s all to do with NHS capacity as BoJo said. Making decisions on who to treat and who can die would be horrendous and they can’t magic more staff up. Just thing if it’s overwhelmed and a family member has a dire emergency but then can’t be treated ... medical staff would not want the Physchological trauma of making those decisions. So I don’t think fighting back is a valid answer.

You could throw up a hospital in theory but where are your extra staff coming from ? In answer to someone’s earlier commenting

I guess OP wants to fight for her right to PARTY 😂

Without this lockdown, there are predicted to be between 2,000 and 4,000 deaths per day - and these figures worsening on the week of Christmas. Merry Christmas, one and all!

Even with it, many thousands of people will die a horrible death from Covid in the run up to Christmas. And if the hospitals are swamped, even more will die needlessly from non-Covid conditions.

I would suggest you frame it not in terms of 'submit or fight' but in acceptance of the current reality and, rather than cut of your nose to spite your face, do your best to help improve the situation rather than to worsen it by being petulant and in denial.

I really hate to see the effect this is all having on people's businesses and livelihoods but given that the NHS was in a bad way anyway, and is usually in a difficult situation over winter, add in covid and it's not hard to see that things are on a knife edge. I hate the loss of personal freedom and all that brings but we also hold personal responsibility too. And as a democratic modern nation we are only going to sort this out by enough of us following the rules. Viruses don't give a shit and are designed to spread as quickly and efficiently as possible. To reduce this all we can do is limit the chains of human interaction that we have. This fight back stuff needs to stop. Now is not the time.

@Dan1980 I didn’t bring up euthanasia as sarcasm.

For your scenario obviously in an emergency age is a massive factor in prioritising treatment. That’s not the scenario at play here though is it?

@ DougRossisTheBoss
I agree with everything you say.

I am with the ‘fight lockdown’ contingent. For anyone who wants to lobby their MP and ask that he/she vote against current measures, the website Lockdown Sceptics has a sample letter that you can use. I think it is the second or third article down when you click on the front page.